Engaging with Stakeholders to Produce Actionable Science: A Framework and Guidance

Aparna Bamzai-Dodson aU.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado
bUniversity of Oklahoma Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Aparna Bamzai-Dodson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Amanda E. Cravens cU.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado

Search for other papers by Amanda E. Cravens in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Alisa A. Wade aU.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado

Search for other papers by Alisa A. Wade in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Renee A. McPherson aU.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado
dU.S. Geological Survey South Central Climate Adaptation Science Center, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Renee A. McPherson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Natural and cultural resource managers are increasingly working with the scientific community to create information on how best to adapt to the current and projected impacts of climate change. Engaging with these managers is a strategy that researchers can use to ensure that scientific outputs and findings are actionable (or useful and usable). In this article, the authors adapt Davidson’s wheel of participation to characterize and describe common stakeholder engagement strategies across the spectrum of inform, consult, participate, and empower. This adapted framework provides researchers with a standardized vocabulary for describing their engagement approach, guidance on how to select an approach, methods for implementing engagement, and potential barriers to overcome. While there is often no one “best” approach to engaging with stakeholders, researchers can use the objectives of their project and the decision context in which their stakeholders operate to guide their selection. Researchers can also revisit this framework over time as their project objectives shift and their stakeholder relationships evolve.

© 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: Aparna Bamzai-Dodson, abamzai@usgs.gov

Abstract

Natural and cultural resource managers are increasingly working with the scientific community to create information on how best to adapt to the current and projected impacts of climate change. Engaging with these managers is a strategy that researchers can use to ensure that scientific outputs and findings are actionable (or useful and usable). In this article, the authors adapt Davidson’s wheel of participation to characterize and describe common stakeholder engagement strategies across the spectrum of inform, consult, participate, and empower. This adapted framework provides researchers with a standardized vocabulary for describing their engagement approach, guidance on how to select an approach, methods for implementing engagement, and potential barriers to overcome. While there is often no one “best” approach to engaging with stakeholders, researchers can use the objectives of their project and the decision context in which their stakeholders operate to guide their selection. Researchers can also revisit this framework over time as their project objectives shift and their stakeholder relationships evolve.

© 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: Aparna Bamzai-Dodson, abamzai@usgs.gov
Save
  • Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science, 2015: Report to the Secretary of the Interior. USGS Rep., 86 pp., https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5c1d05d3e4b0708288c9bc2a.

  • Archie, K. M., 2014: Mountain communities and climate change adaptation: Barriers to planning and hurdles to implementation in the Southern Rocky Mountain Region of North America. Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global Change, 19, 569587, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9449-z.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Archie, K. M., L. Dilling, J. B. Milford, and F. C. Pampel, 2014: Unpacking the ‘information barrier’: Comparing perspectives on information as a barrier to climate change adaptation in the interior mountain west. J. Environ. Manage., 133, 397410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ardener, S., 2005: Ardener’s “muted groups”: The genesis of an idea and its praxis. Women Lang, 28, 5054, 72.

  • Arguez, A., I. Durre, S. Applequist, R. S. Vose, M. F. Squires, X. Yin, R. R. Heim, and T. W. Owen, 2012: NOAA’s 1981–2010 U.S. climate normals: An overview. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 16871697, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00197.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Arnott, J. C., K. J. Mach, and G. Wong-Parodi, 2020a: Editorial overview: The science of actionable knowledge. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 42, A1A5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.03.007.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Arnott, J. C., R. J. Neuenfeldt, and M. C. Lemos, 2020b: Co-producing science for sustainability: Can funding change knowledge use? Global Environ. Change, 60, 101979, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101979.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Arnstein, S. R., 1969: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Amer. Inst. Plann., 35, 216224, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.

  • Averyt, K., and Coauthors, 2017: Regional climate response collaboratives: Multi-institutional support for climate resilience. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99, 891898, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0183.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barry, J., and M. Thompson-Fawcett, 2020: Decolonizing the boundaries between the ‘planner’ and the ‘planned’: Implications of Indigenous property development. Plann. Theory Pract., 21, 410425, https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2020.1775874.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bartlett, C., M. Marshall, and A. Marshall, 2012: Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J. Environ. Stud. Sci., 2, 331340, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bathke, D., T. Haigh, T. Bernadt, and N. Wall, 2019: Drought scenario-based exercises. National Drought Mitigation Center Rep., 79 pp., https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=ndmcpub.

  • Beaury, E. M., E. J. Fusco, M. R. Jackson, B. B. Laginhas, T. L. Morelli, J. M. Allen, V. J. Pasquarella, and B. A. Bradley, 2020: Incorporating climate change into invasive species management: Insights from managers. Biol. Invasions, 22, 233252, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02087-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bednarek, A. T., and Coauthors, 2018: Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Sci., 13, 11751183, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beeton, T. A., S. M. McNeeley, B. W. Miller, and D. S. Ojima, 2019: Grounding simulation models with qualitative case studies: Toward a holistic framework to make climate science usable for US public land management. Climate Risk Manage., 23, 5066, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.09.002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beier, P., L. Hansen, L. Helbrecht, and D. Behar, 2017: A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Conserv. Lett., 10, 288296, https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12300.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beierle, T., 2002: The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal., 22, 739749, https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00065.

  • Bierbaum, R., and Coauthors, 2013: A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: More than before, but less than needed. Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global Change, 18, 361406, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9423-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bisbal, G. A., 2019: Practical tips to establish an actionable science portfolio for climate adaptation. Sci. Public Policy, 46, 148153, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy070.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bojovic, D., A. L. Clair St., I. Christel, M. Terrado, P. Stanzel, P. Gonzalez, and E. J. Palin, 2021: Engagement, involvement and empowerment: Three realms of a coproduction framework for climate services. Global Environ. Change, 68, 102271, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102271.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boy, G. A., 2017: The Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction: A Human-Centered Design Approach. CRC Press, 478 pp.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Bracken, L. J., H. A. Bulkeley, and G. Whitman, 2015: Transdisciplinary research: Understanding the stakeholder perspective. J. Environ. Plann. Manage., 58, 12911308, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.921596.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bradbury, H., S. Waddell, K. O’ Brien, M. Apgar, B. Teehankee, and I. Fazey, 2019: A call to action research for transformations: The times demand it. Action Res., 17, 310, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319829633.

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

    • Crossref
    • 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
  • Brydon-Miller, M., D. Greenwood, and P. Maguire, 2003: Why action research? Action Res., 1, 928, https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030011002.

  • Bush, V., 1945: Science, the endless frontier: A report to the President. U.S. Government Printing Office Doc., https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush1945.htm.

  • Carter, S. K., and Coauthors, 2020: Bridging the research-management gap: Landscape science in practice on public lands in the western United States. Landscape Ecol., 35, 545560, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-00970-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cash, D., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, and J. Jäger, 2003: Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: Linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG Working Paper RWP02-046, 24 pp.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Cash, D., J. C. Borck, and A. G. Patt, 2006: Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: Comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values, 31, 465494, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906287547.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christel, I., D. Hemment, D. Bojovic, F. Cucchietti, L. Calvo, M. Stefaner, and C. Buontempo, 2018: Introducing design in the development of effective climate services. Climate Serv., 9, 111121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clifford, K. R., W. R. Travis, and L. T. Nordgren, 2020: A climate knowledges approach to climate services. Climate Serv., 18, 100155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cloyd, E., S. C. Moser, E. Maibach, J. Maldonado, and T. Chen, 2016: Engagement in the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment: Commitment, capacity, and communication for impact. Climatic Change, 135, 3954, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1568-y.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collins, C. S., and C. M. Stockton, 2018: The central role of theory in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods, 17, 1609406918797475, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Crausbay, S. D., and Coauthors, 2020: Unfamiliar territory: Emerging themes for ecological drought research and management. One Earth, 3, 337353, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cravens, A., and N. Ardoin, 2016: Negotiating credibility and legitimacy in the shadow of an authoritative data source. Ecol. Soc., 21, art30, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08849-210430.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Davidson, S., 1998: Spinning the wheel of empowerment. Planning, 1262, 1415.

  • DeCrappeo, N. M., G. A. Bisbal, and A. M. Meadow, 2017: A path to actionable climate science: Perspectives from the field. Environ. Manage., 61, 181187, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0960-y.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 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
  • Dilling, L., K. Lackstrom, B. Haywood, K. Dow, M. C. Lemos, J. Berggren, and S. Kalafatis, 2015: What stakeholder needs tell us about enabling adaptive capacity: The intersection of context and information provision across regions in the United States. Wea. Climate Soc., 7, 517, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00001.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Diver, S., 2017: Negotiating Indigenous knowledge at the science-policy interface: Insights from the Xáxli’p Community Forest. Environ. Sci. Policy, 73, 111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.001.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Doemeland, D., and J. Trevino, 2014: Which World Bank reports are widely read? World Bank Working Paper 6851, 32 pp., https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/387501468322733597/pdf/WPS6851.pdf.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Doswell, C. A., A. R. Moller, and H. E. Brooks, 1999: Storm spotting and public awareness since the first tornado forecasts of 1948. Wea. Forecasting, 14, 544557, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1999)014<0544:SSAPAS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Enquist, C., and Coauthors, 2017: Foundations of translational ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ., 15, 541550, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1733.

  • Eyring, V., S. Bony, G. A. Meehl, C. A. Senior, B. Stevens, R. J. Stouffer, and K. E. Taylor, 2016: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 19371958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Few, R., K. Brown, and E. Tompkins, 2007: Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7, 4659, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Filho, W. L., Ed., 2015: Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation. Springer-Verlag, 2198 pp.

  • Fisher, J. R. B., S. A. Wood, M. A. Bradford, and T. R. Kelsey, 2020: Improving scientific impact: How to practice science that influences environmental policy and management. Conserv. Sci. Pract., 2, e210, https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Friesen, P., L. Kearns, B. Redman, and A. L. Caplan, 2017: Rethinking the Belmont report? Amer. J. Bioeth., 17, 1521, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1329482.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fyfe, A., K. Coate, S. Curry, S. Lawson, N. Moxham, and C. M. Røstvik, 2017: Untangling academic publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research. U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council Briefing Paper, 23 pp., https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Gasson, S., 2003: Human-centered vs. user-centered approaches to information system design. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl., 5, 29–46.

  • Gerlak, A. K., T. Heikkila, and J. Newig, 2020: Learning in environmental governance: Opportunities for translating theory to practice. J. Environ. Policy Plann., 22, 653666, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1776100.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gluckman, P., and J. Wilsdon, 2016: From paradox to principles: Where next for scientific advice to governments? Palgrave Commun., 2, 16077, https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.77.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goodrich, K. A., K. D. Sjostrom, C. Vaughan, L. Nichols, A. Bednarek, and M. C. Lemos, 2020: Who are boundary spanners and how can we support them in making knowledge more actionable in sustainability fields? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 42, 4551, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.001.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Guido, Z., D. Hill, M. Crimmins, and D. Ferguson, 2013: Informing decisions with a climate synthesis product: Implications for regional climate services. Wea. Climate Soc., 5, 8392, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00012.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hassol, S. J., 2008: Improving how scientists communicate about climate change. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 89, 106107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008EO110002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hegger, D., M. Lamers, A. V. Zeijl-Rozema, and C. Dieperink, 2012: Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environ. Sci. Policy, 18, 5265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hegger, D., A. V. Zeijl-Rozema, and C. Dieperink, 2014: Toward design principles for joint knowledge production projects: Lessons from the deepest polder of The Netherlands. Reg. Environ. Change, 14, 10491062, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0382-6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Human, B. A., and A. Davies, 2010: Stakeholder consultation during the planning phase of scientific programs. Mar. Policy, 34, 645654, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.12.003.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IDEO, 2015: The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. 1st ed. IDEO.org/Design Kit, 192 pp.

  • Imenda, S., 2014: Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks? J. Soc. Sci., 38, 185195, https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2014.11893249.

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

  • Jagannathan, K., A. D. Jones, and I. Ray, 2020: The making of a metric: Co-producing decision-relevant climate science. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 102, E1579E1590, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0296.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jansen, T., L. Claassen, I. van Kamp, and D. R. M. Timmermans, 2019: Understanding of the concept of ‘uncertain risk’. A qualitative study among different societal groups. J. Risk Res., 22, 658672, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1503614.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jantarasami, L., J. Lawler, and C. Thomas, 2010: Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in U.S. National Parks and Forests. Ecol. Soc., 15, art33, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03715-150433.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jarvis, R. M., and Coauthors, 2020: Navigating spaces between conservation research and practice: Are we making progress? Ecol. Solutions Evidence, 1, e12028, https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12028.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jasanoff, S., Ed., 2004: States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge, 317 pp.

  • Johnson, C. J., and M. P. Gillingham, 2004: Mapping uncertainty: Sensitivity of wildlife habitat ratings to expert opinion. J. Appl. Ecol., 41, 10321041, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00975.x.

    • 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
  • Kemp, K. B., J. J. Blades, P. Z. Klos, T. E. Hall, J. E. Force, P. Morgan, and W. T. Tinkham, 2015: Managing for climate change on federal lands of the western United States: Perceived usefulness of climate science, effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and barriers to implementation. Ecol. Soc., 20, 17, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07522-200217.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation