Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 129
10
Synthesis of Key Questions
for the Workshop
At the outset of the workshop, members of the organizing panel agreed
to listen throughout the presentations and discussions for responses to the
key questions that were identified in advance (see Box II-1). What follows
are their syntheses of the responses they heard.
INITIATING ADAPTATION EFFORTS
Richard Andrews
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Two key questions were posed to the participants about initiating ad-
aptation efforts:
1. What are the main barriers to initiating adaptation efforts, and
what has been effective at overcoming them?
2. How and under what conditions have climate change consider-
ations been successfully integrated into the normal activities of
regional or sectoral risk management organizations?
Andrews heard workshop participants identify several kinds of bar-
riers that can prevent initiating adaptation efforts. These include barriers
internal to each decision maker and to other actors (e.g., attitudes, incor-
rect knowledge) and barriers external to them (e.g., lack of resources, lack
of authority or jurisdiction to act, misaligned incentives). Barriers can be
found at the levels of individuals, of organizations, and of communities,
12
OCR for page 130
10 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
as well as at higher levels of regional to global governance. Although it
may be tempting to identify such barriers as “maladaptations,” more often
they represent the legacy of adaptations that were successful in the past.
Individuals who now benefit from them are therefore reluctant to give them
up. At the organizational and community levels, barriers include inertia and
aversion to change, low public awareness, old battle lines, traditional orga-
nizational missions, and organizational “silos,” among others. Misaligned
incentives are important but are not the only important barriers.
He also heard several creative ideas and recurrent themes about ways
of overcoming these barriers. Some lessons can be learned from analogous
fields, such as public health.
One key step to overcome barriers is to integrate the responsibility for
considering potential climate change impacts and proposing alternatives
for adaptation into the core missions and operating decision processes of
all organizations that might be affected. Doing this is essential in order to
identify for decision makers (and the public) how adaptation to anticipated
climate change is important to their core responsibilities and how it might
necessitate different choices than would have been made in the past. This
process of regularizing attention to the adaptation issue is similar to the
process pioneered by the environmental impact statement requirement of
the National Environmental Policy Act 40 years ago.
A second theme is that, in addition to integrating climate change into
routine organizational decision processes, there may also be the need for a
high-level convening entity with the responsibility to address interagency
and interjurisdictional conflicts and coordination needs.
A third recurrent theme is that empowering bottom-up initiatives and
promoting peer-to-peer learning among them is a key to more widespread
commitment to adaptation initiatives. Decision makers in cities, communi-
ties, and businesses are far more likely to trust and adopt the approaches
of successful peers facing similar issues, who can speak to the need, the
benefits, and methods of implementation, than to trust officials at higher
levels of government or academics. The group heard repeatedly about the
importance of empowering bottom-up responses, for example by cities,
as well as by other localized and regional networks of stakeholders and
scientists—for example, initiatives of the Regional Integrated Sciences and
Assessments (RISA) Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Fourth, windows of opportunity are important in framing proposals
for change and overcoming barriers, and it is important to be prepared to
use such opportunities effectively when they arise. Localized or isolated
disasters may be leading indicators of more serious potential impacts and
patterns of impacts that may occur in the future if preventive adaptation
does not occur. A central argument for preventive adaptation is to diminish
OCR for page 131
11
SYNTHESIS OF KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOP
the need for highly expensive postdisaster response and persistent disrup-
tive changes.
Fifth, there is a need to reframe climate change adaptation as oppor-
tunities to protect and achieve commonly shared values for the future of a
community rather than as threats to entrenched values and interests. There
is also a need to bring new actors into the process who can help infuse new
ways of thinking and generate creative solutions.
In answer to the second core question, one key factor for success in
adaptation initiatives is buy-in by high-level local leadership, often result-
ing from peer-to-peer learning among such leaders. A second is promoting
interaction among technical and stakeholder organizations to integrate the
best knowledge that is available both from experts and from the communi-
ties affected by climate change and adaptation measures. A critical third
factor is continuous engagement with adaptive communities rather than
one-time studies, rooting adaptation in local areas and recognizing and
using relevant local knowledge, which may be as important, or more im-
portant, than downscaled global models and other more general expertise.
A key value of social science in these processes is to help all participants
visualize options and consider their costs and consequences. Finally, it is
important to start by focusing on a few immediate decision issues that link
to community priorities and that can be acted on immediately with avail-
able information, for which the consideration of climate change could make
a significant difference to the outcome.
Finally, Andrews identified a number of unanswered questions:
• ow can action be induced among cities and organizations that are
H
not yet active?
• ow does one deal with equity questions and with highly vulner-
H
able populations—both by engaging them in decisions and by ad-
dressing their interests and needs?
• ow can long-term adaptive institutions be created, such as long-
H
term insurance contracts?
• ow can people get default options right, to facilitate both organi-
H
zational and individual behavior patterns that are most consistent
with effective adaptation?
In the discussion that followed, Cynthia Rosenzweig noted that having
an ongoing series of foundational reports, such as the U.S. National Assess-
ment of Climate Change, can help bring information into the system. Kristie
Ebi said that a lot of work needs to be done in the scientific community,
which does not understand risk management. For example, in general,
Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change still
OCR for page 132
12 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
says to wait for more certainty and does not understand what Working
Group II needs.
JoAnn Carmin commented that much of the discussion wrestles with
the problem of diffusion but noted that adaptation also requires innovation
before diffusion can happen.
Maria Blair said that the questions are great, but there is nothing to
manage yet. There was division in the room about whether anything is
known about how to make adaptation happen. Questions were asked
about what is being managed and why. Adaptation is happening, and, in
the United Kingdom, people are even thinking about ways to adapt to a
world that is 4 degrees Celsius warmer than before. Such specificity is not
evident in this country, where policies have rarely designated an explicit
end point to manage to or for. She questioned whether, if something like a
4 degree temperature increase is anticipated, “managing” is even a realis-
tic idea. What to do with that kind of a transformation is not addressed.
Some literatures talk about “navigating” transitions. She noted that there
is a history of management approaches that prop up maladaptive systems.
People assume that they can do better in the future, but is there any evi-
dence? Maybe it would be better to focus more on getting money, technol-
ogy, and information to the people who will be adapting. She identified the
adaptation problem as a collective action problem, involving more than
just choices by individual actors, and suggested that institutional change is
therefore a way to proceed. She had not heard in the workshop about how
to manage institutions. There may be much better thinking about short-
term than longer term adaptations, but people need to get over short-term
thinking, she said. It is not clear which short-term adaptations will be
maladaptive in the long term. For example, if there is dramatic, abrupt sea
level rise, almost everything now being considered is maladaptive.
COORDINATING ADAPTATION EFFORTS
Stewart Cohen
Environment Canada and University of British Columbia
Three key questions were posed to the participants about coordinating
adaptation efforts:
1. What strategies or methods have been effective for coordinat-
ing adaptation efforts across scales (e.g., national, regional, local,
individual)?
2. What strategies or methods have been effective for coordinating ad-
aptation efforts across sectors (e.g., government, private, nonprofit,
community)?
OCR for page 133
1
SYNTHESIS OF KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOP
3. How should stakeholders and the public be engaged in adaptation
efforts?
Cohen began by noting a set of coordination issues that had been
raised at the workshop: creating common space; building bridges and/or
webs; the issue of what to adapt to and who will be doing it (future cli-
mate change is different from past variability, and coordination will have
to include new actors); the need for champions of coordination to create
dialogue (e.g., among government agencies, trade associations, specific
government programs, such as RISA, collaborations among cities); a need
to integrate climate change adaptation with long-established hazards and
disaster research networks; and a need for effective flow of climate change
information to stakeholders.
Cohen said that a participatory approach is important and implies a
complicated set of links, which involve a variety of translators, many of
whom are practitioners who use their tools of practice to inform the stake-
holders they work for. The tool developers themselves may or may not be
good translators.
He suggested that group-based model building could be a useful option
to combine technical information and experiential knowledge. This may be
more attractive than having people experiment with a tool that someone
else has built. However, it needs a platform to make it possible, and the
feasibility of the approach will vary depending on the backgrounds and
skills of participants.
He noted that a lot was said at the workshop about the role of net-
works in building webs. Building webs requires a two-way process, not
one-way outreach. Finding the right partners can be a problem. In some
networks, as suggested by NOAA’s RISA centers, experts can become ex-
tension specialists for local adaptation. The language of networks is help-
ful, even for people who do not think about the morphology of network
structures, because it justifies the roles of coordination enablers. Who will
be an enabler of change is not known in advance, but the community may
know who can fill that role.
Cohen noted that “mainstreaming” is a means objective, not an ends
objective. Dangers in mainstreaming include the potential to disempower
people and to give too much attention to sources of funding. He also said
that coordination may hide underlying sources of conflict. It can be useful
to turn a conflict into an argument, in which people can learn from each
other. Coordination may help by bringing different actors into the room.
How can coordination improve response capacity? One way is through
shared learning (aimed at solving a problem, using local knowledge, and
translating information from unfamiliar sources). Another way is to build
institutional memory of information exchanges, which does not automati-
OCR for page 134
14 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
cally happen with one-time projects. A third way is through dialogue in
adaptation research efforts, which can go beyond outreach and opinion
surveys, especially if the dialogue is facilitated by local partners. This can
include both group-based model building and model-enabled dialogue.
In the discussion that followed, Ebi noted that there are some strong ad-
aptation networks internationally that are developing institutional memory.
Rosenzweig said local practitioners cannot be counted on to remain in place,
so there is a need to leave something behind for local organizations.
INFORMING ADAPTATION EFFORTS
Michele Betsill
Colorado State University
Two key questions were posed to the participants about informing
adaptation efforts:
1. What methods have been successful in providing needed informa-
tion to risk managers who must cope with climate change?
2. How should efforts to inform climate adaptation characterize risk
and uncertainty about future climate and other processes affecting
climate risk?
Regarding successful methods, Betsill concluded that the key is process,
not products. However, the process needs to be organized around a task or
problem; has to be sustained in order to enable learning, build trust, and
allow for updating of information; and has to involve the users of informa-
tion in partnership with researchers and agency officials. Information pro-
duction has to respond to users’ needs, with coproduction of knowledge.
Sometimes the scientific credibility of information is less important than
issues of trust and salience.
A second lesson is that one size does not fit all. Information products
are needed, and many types of information need to be presented in many
ways. Regarding ways to characterize risk and uncertainty, Betsill said she
had not heard much about this. She noted that people do know how to deal
with uncertainty. The workshop heard about the importance of providing
choices and empowering people—giving them a range of things to do and
ways to think about the choices.
In the discussion, Kirstin Dow noted some new dimensions in inform-
ing adaptation decisions. There are new forms of technology, such as new
social media. It is possible, using the new media, to talk with people in
multiple locations to take advantage of connectivity among local places.
Several participants engaged in a discussion of the characterization of
OCR for page 135
1
SYNTHESIS OF KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOP
uncertainty in informing adaptation. Michael Savonis said that climate sci-
entists are very conservative about drawing conclusions and, from a policy
maker’s perspective, he preferred that they convey both the uncertainty
and what they do know. He realizes that there is a very strong element of
judgment, but decision makers rely on scientific input that uses judgment
because of what lies behind it. Scientists need to explain why they believe
what they believe. Decision makers want more than just “what the model
says.” They also want scientists’ evaluations of what the model says. An-
other participant noted, however, that modelers are often not the same
people who collected the data, so they may not know how to evaluate the
strength of evidence for certain model outputs.
Cohen commented that there are uncertainties both in models and in
the translation of models for decision makers. Models need to be translated
carefully. For example, timber supply is not the same as the biomass of the
wood, and water supply is not the same as stream flow. The challenge is to
connect model results to decision needs—to translate them into terms the
decision maker understands. That translation process is currently poorly
understood.
Dow commented that some decision makers she knows actually want
numerical probabilities. Amy Luers agreed, noting that with climate change,
uncertainty has different forms: what can be influenced (e.g., emissions) and
what cannot (e.g., climate sensitivity).
SCIENCE NEEDS FOR ADAPTATION EFFORTS
Maria Carmen Lemos
Three key questions were posed about science needs for informing
adaptation efforts:
1. What new social science knowledge is needed to develop a national
adaptation strategy?
2. What metrics and indicators are needed to support adaptation deci-
sions (e.g., indicators of vulnerability, resilience, adaptive potential,
effectiveness of adaptation efforts)?
3. What are the key needs for databases, scenario development, and
modeling?
Lemos noted that there have been many efforts to develop science
priorities for human dimensions of climate change, including at least three
recent National Research Council reports. They all agree that more social
science is needed. This workshop is an opportunity to identify which items
OCR for page 136
16 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
on the researchers’ lists correspond to what decision makers say they
need.
The way the decision makers phrase their needs is illuminating. One
issue is how to make decision makers care, given such barriers to action
as social inertia and the complexity of government. Related to this is the
question of how science can be used to mobilize people. Lemos heard the
government officials saying that decision makers care about thresholds and
tipping points, potential catastrophe, security and national interest, the
linkage between climate change, as well as things of concern on a day-to-
day basis, win-win situations (e.g., responses that create jobs and wealth).
They said that decision makers care about setting priorities for their invest-
ments. Even if the concept of adaptive capacity is not ideal, it does help
to decide where to invest. They also care about questions of when people
need to know what and of how to learn from experience. Finally, there
was an expressed need during the workshop for scientists to communicate
what they know better: synthesizing it to make it easy for decision makers
to use it.
The scientists’ agenda represents only the group that is present, but
there are some frequently repeated terms: the roles of values, beliefs, and
attitudes in action and inaction; networks; the roles of formal and informal
institutions, those that like to change or resist change, and effects of rules
on action; surveying frameworks for thinking about adaptation and car-
rying out metastudies; understanding the evolution of preferences; social
inertia, trade-offs, the role of management and governance, the organiza-
tion of adaptation options, and ways to evaluate choices. The big themes
on the scientists’ research agenda are how to understand system change
from a social and ecological point of view and how to apply knowledge of
social change to climate.
In the discussion, Roger Kasperson characterized these comments as
identifying important questions about which quite a bit is known. With
sufficient resources, someone could pull this knowledge out of the research
literature to make it useful to decision makers. The research community
cannot give pithy answers to complex questions, but it can identify impor-
tant topic areas that can provide something to the decision makers and it
can tell them where to find out more. Lemos added that the research com-
munity could grow very quickly if it attracts researchers who know about
poverty, preferences, and other fundamental social science topics and get
them thinking about climate issues.
Kasperson commented that the idea of good communication as two-
way was settled in the social science literature 30 years ago, but that, except
for the RISA Program, it is still not understood in practice. Instead, many
people talk about outreach, rather than about inreach, and get nowhere.
Conversations about informing are still centered on dissemination and influ-
OCR for page 137
1
SYNTHESIS OF KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOP
ence. Susanne Moser said that both government officials and scientists are
trained just to get their messages out and suggested that part of the problem
is that students have not been properly educated. Another participant cited
the work of Ralph Keeney and others on value-tree analysis, a technique
that gets values on the table as a basis for discussion and for increasing
understanding and that works by forcing two-way communication. Helen
Ingram noted that issues get on the agenda if there are scheduled decisions
to make and if they are linked with social mobilization. She added that
researchers do not normally write to political imperatives.
Neil Leary added that communication has worked fairly well when
there is a common task that requires iteration. In contrast, climate scientists
and risk research scientists talk to each other about what they want from
each other, and progress is not made. However, if such a discussion is part
of a process with a goal and continues for a while, they can figure it out.
Ashwini Chhatre said that collaboration can go too far, in the sense
that legitimizing research only in terms of what decision makers want can
lead to failure to do the basic research that is needed. Jamie Kruse said that
one science need of importance to NOAA is to have good performance
measures for adaptation.
MANAGING ADAPTATION EFFORTS
Susanne Moser
Three key questions were posed about managing adaptation efforts:
1. How should a national climate adaptation effort set priorities
across hazards, sectors, regions, and time? What criteria, and what
processes, should be used?
2. What mechanisms can help make adaptation efforts adaptive?
How can a system enable decision makers to learn efficiently from
experience?
3. What additional capacity do federal agencies need to support ad-
aptation and resilience?
Moser began by recalling Blair’s comment that it may be premature to
say much about how to “manage adaptation” because the nation is still at
such an early stage in the adaptation process. Very few projects, communi-
ties, or states have actually gotten to the point of implementing their plans
or making actual changes on the ground.
She also noted that perhaps it is difficult to decide where to focus a
long-lasting, deliberately learning-oriented, iterative process, because deci-
sion makers usually are distracted by having to deal with the crisis of the
OCR for page 138
1 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
day. Moreover, so many things are critical—water, coastal areas, food secu-
rity, species protection—that both scientists and decision makers are hard
pressed to say that one is more important than another. She pointed out,
recalling Neil Adger’s presentation, that the criteria to use for priority set-
ting will be different depending on goals (e.g., reducing vulnerability versus
efficient adaptation versus getting to system resilience). In the United States,
she noted, people seem to be concerned mainly with efficient adaptation
and are rarely concerned with the original meaning of resilience or with
reducing differential vulnerability. She challenged Blair and Kathy Jacobs
(who had emphasized different goals in their respective areas of work) to
clarify for and among themselves (i.e., for the federal government) what
they actually want to facilitate and support.
Regarding ways to make adaptation more adaptive, Moser noted that
the process needs to be deliberative, iterative, and well facilitated, with
feedback and dense networks. But commitment, institutionalization, and
leadership will also be necessary to make adaptation an ongoing consider-
ation. Whereas it may have been possible to deal with problems once and
for all in the past, a continually changing climate does not allow this luxury.
She also noted that the workshop heard about the benefit of conflict as
an opportunity to revisit issues. One way to institutionalize such ongoing
processes is to change the expectations for professional performance that
are embedded in job descriptions: from expectations for perfect, flawless,
or successful outcomes to expectations for learning from past decisions. Ac-
countability is one of the quickest ways to ensure that learning happens.
On capacity needs, Moser pointed to Lemos’s list of components of
adaptive capacity: human capital (educating the current and future gen-
erations); information and technological resources; material resources and
infrastructure (critical for functioning but possibly not necessary for adap-
tation); social capital (e.g., more democratic forms of engagement in the
adaptation process and trust, which is slow to build and quick to lose);
political capital (the existence of visible leaders, which makes it easier for
others to act); wealth and financial resources; and public–private partner-
ships as a mechanism. Moser noted that the experience from some of the
early actors suggests that not all of these capacities are always necessary.
Leaders and early adopters make do with what they have and position
themselves for a longer term process that allows them to build capacities
they do not currently have at a later time. She also recalled examples of
institutions and entitlements that have created capacity but also gave people
investments in the status quo that functioned as barriers to change rather
than facilitating it.
In the discussion that followed, a participant noted that, although
there has been a lot of talk about adaptation planning, it is evaluation that
is really important. Resources are needed for evaluation. Although this is
OCR for page 139
1
SYNTHESIS OF KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOP
an issue in many other environmental management and change processes,
it may be even more critical in the context of adaptation to a changing
climate. The management tools also need to include professional standards
and norms and regulatory requirements. Another participant added that
more work is needed on measurement of adaptation success.
Rosenzweig noted the importance of a conceptual frame that covers the
many adaptive actions involved in managing a complex set of responses.
For example, the adaptation process in New York City builds on London’s
idea of flexible adaptation pathways, using a diagram showing acceptable
risks and how climate change is leading beyond what is acceptable. This
diagram is an important management tool both to convey the need and
urgency of adaptation and to trigger changes in policy as certain thresholds
are reached. Moreover, such a diagram can show, in a simple model, what
mitigation and adaptation do and how they complement each other. A term
like “climate-resilient cities”—a common and galvanizing language—is also
important to facilitate action.
COMMENTS ON MAJOR INSIGHTS AND ISSUES
Thomas Dietz
Dietz commented that behavioral and social science work on climate
change adaptation needs to be in Pasteur’s quadrant (Stokes, 1997). It needs
to contribute to fundamental understanding, and it needs to be useful. The
field needs to keep addressing the fundamental questions that are special
to this area. For example, there are normative questions about what people
might lose as a result of climate change. Research on adaptation can de-
velop understanding about what people want to preserve and do not want
to lose. Also, this area can be an important test bed for theories of social
change.
Another big issue is risk. It is important to clarify the risks of climate
change and bring in literature on how to deliberate about risk. Research
needs to keep in mind the use of uncertainty as a political weapon. It is
essential to know about how to identify and engage stakeholders and how
to inform the codesign of processes to inform adaptation. Engagements in
climate change adaptation should be treated as experiments and evaluated.
People should be skeptical of claims of program success. Dietz also noted
that new technologies will transform society and could also help to develop
better data.
There are also important issues about research methods, he said. A lot
of good case-based studies were mentioned at the workshop. In addition,
more comparative work and more meta-analysis are needed. A knowledge
OCR for page 140
140 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
base that derives from a multimethod, cumulative literature is not yet a
reality.
Funding is an important need. Social science funding has declined over
the 20 years of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and this needs
to be reversed. There is no routine forum like this workshop, in which so-
cial scientists can talk to each other in depth to advance the science. This
kind of problem-oriented forum is important because the social science
disciplines tend to retard the process.
Dietz pointed to the need to connect to the coupled natural and human
systems work, such as is being supported by the National Science Founda-
tion, and to human ecology and other disciplines that go beyond the social
sciences. He said that networks are central, also pointing to a rich set of
analytical tools that can be used as practical and theory-building tools.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
Kasperson invited each participant to identify one thing that should not
be forgotten in the report of the workshop.
Several comments addressed the needs for improving the theory and
general understanding of adaptation. Adam Henry said it is very hard to
make useful recommendations without a comprehensive theory of adapta-
tion. What there are so far are some major categories of variables, not
a theory. Kasperson agreed that integrative theory is needed in order to
manage and design experiments. Rosenzweig said that it is time to set up
national and regional coordinated long-term efforts on adaptation, with
evaluation built in, to help develop the theory. Dietz said that the commons
literature shows how a research community, working within a theoretical
framework, can move understanding forward.
Other comments focused on particular scientific issues. One participant
noted that the idea of social inertia is important but overly simplistic and
needs to be unpacked. One pointed to the need for more discussions of the
critical roles of boundary organizations. One said that adaptation strate-
gies, even in urban areas, should be analyzed within their ecosystems. One
identified a need to talk about uncertainties in many knowledge areas, not
only in climate science. There were also suggestions to consider information
technology as a force shaping social change and to find balance between
“thin” and “thick” descriptions of adaptation processes.
Several comments focused on issues of practice. One participant reiter-
ated the importance of integrating adaptation into the workings of existing
institutions. However, another noted that there is a tension between nor-
malizing (mainstreaming) adaptation and not normalizing it. A participant
noted the importance and unavoidability of conflict and said that the way
to address it was not to stifle it but to use it to surface unheard voices and
OCR for page 141
141
SYNTHESIS OF KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOP
unrecognized impacts. Another pointed out the importance of continued
“care and feeding” of local adaptation efforts after research projects end.
Some comments focused on the magnitude of the adaptation challenge.
Moser called for an end to the idea that climate change will be a slow,
gradual process and for an increased focus on the big adaptation challenges
society may be facing. She predicted that it will be a much bigger challenge
than people think. Peter Banks suggested that people are facing three kinds
of adaptation simultaneously: a wrenching energy adaptation over the next
50 years, the addition of additional 180 million people in the United States,
and climate change. He suggested that this combination of adaptations will
lead to social turbulence and a rethinking of institutions.
A few comments emphasized the connections between science and prac-
tice. One pointed to an urgent need for social science research as a basis
for practice, rather than the consulting input that provides the conventional
wisdom. Others wanted more practitioners in discussions like this one,
including local practitioners, to talk with scientists to build understanding
and new ways of thinking. One said there is a need to follow up meetings
like this one, for deeper engagement between scientists and practitioners.
Another called for multidisciplinary funding of rich environments that
reach from theory to practice.
Some comments focused on agencies’ needs. One agency participant
said that federal agencies are starting to think hard about adaptation issues,
are really interested in what the research community has to say, and will be
persistently asking questions of the research community. Another asked for
advice on how best to set up national, state, and local networks.
Finally, several comments raised capacity issues. One participant noted
the declining budget for human dimensions research and the need to de-
velop activities and capacity in developing countries. Another noted the
need to nurture the next generation of people to fill the gap between sci-
ence and its application to adaptation. Bridging the gap is a job people can
have. Another emphasized the need for universities to train practitioners
and “boundary people” through degree programs. Dietz commented that
extension services, which provide boundary people, are being gutted at the
state level.
OCR for page 142
