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 93
7
Place-Based Adaptation Cases
LESSONS FROM THE RISA EXPERIENCE
Caitlin Simpson and Claudia Nierenberg1
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Claudia Nierenberg briefly described the Regional Integrated Sciences
and Assessments (RISA) Program. Starting in the early 1990s as a “human
dimensions” program in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA) in a climate research program, it began by looking in
particular places at the relationship between knowledge about climate,
particularly the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, and
the needs of decision making. The program was intended to assess climate-
sensitive issues regionally and to teach NOAA how to build knowledge
systems for information delivery. Key questions included what the critical
issues are and how they are identified, what is known and needs to be
known, how knowledge needs change over time, whether enough is known
for effective decision making, and how to maximize social and economic
benefits.
Each RISA regional team offered lessons in coordination. The coor-
dination issues that immediately arose involved linking federal agencies
with each other and with state and local governments in the region. The
program offered insights into how to coordinate around outcomes, and in
1 The
presentation is available at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/hdgc/Lessons%20fro
m%20RISA%20Experience.pdf [accessed September 2010].
OCR for page 94
4 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
more recent years it has addressed methods for evaluating the success of
the program from the participants’ points of view. An unexpected lesson in
coordination was the value of coordinating between university and agency
experts. This coordination increased the credibility of the information
coming out of the program. It also proved to be very important that the
researchers were stakeholders, that is, that they were located in the region
and had a commitment to it over a long period of time, enabling them to
work with stakeholders through implementation phases. Nierenberg said
that the program was always intended to inform the development of some-
thing like a climate service. The program leaders originally imagined that
the RISA teams together would, with partners at all scales of government,
develop an overall research agenda that would advance knowledge for cli-
mate adaptation. The RISA program has made important contributions in
this area and should be looked to as people work to broaden coordination
on an adaptation research agenda.
Caitlin Simpson said that the RISA research teams are seen as providing
for bottom-up, flexible responses to regional issues rather than for decisions
governed by NOAA from Washington. Experience has shown that residence
of the team in the region is important for monitoring change over time in
physical conditions, land use, and stakeholders’ perceptions, as well as for
improving stakeholders’ ability to interact with climate scientists. Attention
to social context and to the evolution of technology have proved increas-
ingly important as well. Each RISA team got to identify critical issues for
its own region. It was important for the centers to have expertise in a range
of climate time scales, from paleoclimate through models of seasonal to in-
terannual climate variability and change. This range of expertise resonates
with resource managers, whose interests are also in various time scales.
Another lesson was the importance of integrating physical and social
sciences. The social sciences have been underrepresented in many RISA cen-
ters, and this problem continues, but recent calls for RISA proposals have
increasingly emphasized the need to integrate the social sciences—not only
to assess climate information needs (e.g., in relation to downscaled climate
models), but also for analysis of vulnerability, evaluation of impacts, evalu-
ation of RISA tools and processes, and consideration of decision-making
contexts.
Simpson said the program now stresses an evaluation component from
the start of projects. This includes an assessment of who the stakeholders
are, what their knowledge levels are, and so forth, as well as reassessment
over time. The program has learned that it is critical to have a core integra-
tion structure for network building, research coordination, and ensuring
stakeholder influence on the priorities for the science agenda. Stakeholders
like a central place to go where they can look at a range of climate informa-
OCR for page 95
PLACE-BASED ADAPTATION CASES
tion. Some of them also see RISA teams as a way to link to federal agencies
to look at a range of issues, including agriculture, wildlife, and water.
Simpson said that from the program’s viewpoint, the use of climate
information for Western water issues is moving forward most quickly.
Water managers have become more interested in a range of climate infor-
mation, including projections of stream flow, and are interested in using
paleoclimate information to frame their interpretation of the information.
Some water managers want sophisticated training in regional modeling and
downscaling. The program has often seen droughts as opportunities for
talking about climate change and the implications for planning.
The RISA Program has done pilot work with climate extension spe-
cialists in Arizona and Florida, who work with agricultural extension spe-
cialists. The South Carolina RISA is now working with a coastal climate
specialist and sea grant extension on coastal issues. Regional networks
are emerging, involving university-based research teams, a set of regional
climate centers, state climatologists, and federal entities, including U.S.
Department of the Interior centers specifically.
An emerging area in the program involves experimenting with visu-
alization tools, scenario planning, and other methods to communicate
information that includes uncertainty to stakeholders. For example, in the
Colorado River basin, there are various stream flow projections for mid-
century. Several RISA teams are working together to compare models and
their projections for the basin and to communicate the information in the
face of their differences. Another emerging area is water and energy. Simp-
son ended by emphasizing that social science is critical to the RISA teams,
noting that the program is working harder to identify vulnerabilities and
evaluate outcomes.
Nierenberg added that one of the biggest lessons of the program so
far is how much time it takes to establish relationships and get them to
evolve.
In the discussion that followed the presentation, Helen Ingram said that
even if few social science experts were initially involved, the program was
built on social science ideas and questions. RISAs embody a social science
notion of relational knowledge, which comes from communities of prac-
tice. They have thus become an important social science experiment with
changing incentives for the participants, especially the academic ones. The
program gave them a reason to care about what information users want,
by providing funding for staff support through university teams to write
newsletters and do other outreach. It built bridges between researchers
and federal and local agencies and gradually attracted more social science
researchers to work on these kinds of issues. She emphasized that it takes
enormous patience to establish relationships of trust and collaboration
among people who lack experience in talking to each other.
OCR for page 96
6 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
Maria Carmen Lemos asked how the RISA experience is informing
the NOAA Climate Service (NCS) and how the service would relate to the
RISAs in the future. Nierenberg said RISAs have had a profound influence
on the NCS, as has the National Weather Service. She said there is now
debate within the federal government about how the NCS should relate to
other agencies and how it should be influenced by citizen contacts. Simpson
added that the regional services component of the NCS will draw on the
experiences and main lessons of the RISAs.
Thomas Dietz asked if the RISAs should also do research on the pro-
cesses of working with stakeholders. Simpson said that this is very im-
portant and is actually already occurring. The program wants to look
for innovative ways of working with stakeholders. The most innovative
proposals in that regard in the last round of competition fared better. Nie-
renberg said that a difficult issue is how to cooperate across agencies as they
work to diffuse that knowledge.
URBAN CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANNING:
LESSONS FROM THE GLOBAL SOUTH
JoAnn Carmin2
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JoAnn Carmin began by saying that her comments may be reiterating
what has already been said, but on a different scale. Her research concerns
urban environmental governance: how cities make sense of climate impacts
and how that links to action. The conventional wisdom about urban ad-
aptation is that
1. the science has to be perfect, or cities can do nothing;
2. cities will not act without external incentives (carrots and sticks);
3. cities will do nothing without additional capacity;
4. public participation is essential always and often; and
5. all innovation comes from the global North.
Her research, which so far involves case studies in low and high middle-
income countries, tests these items of conventional wisdom.
She has found that although scientific projections are important, di-
sasters have been catalysts for planning in the global South. If climate
projections are borne out by events, local champions often run with the
2 The presentation is available at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/hdgc/Urban%20
Climate%20Adaptation%20Planning-Lessons%20from%20the%20Global%20South.pdf
[accessed September 2010].
OCR for page 97
PLACE-BASED ADAPTATION CASES
experience. Some cities also see that advancing an adaptation agenda of-
fers them an opportunity to be regional, national, or global leaders. Also,
they do not see adaptation as something additional: climate adaptation is
seen as fitting with their other priorities and as a means to advance their
existing goals.
To sustain adaptation initiatives, buy-in is needed across the city and
across old battle lines. People in the cities go to conferences, conduct
local research studies, and look to universities and research institutes to
extend local capacity and generate local knowledge. They build networks
of government and research personnel and develop research agendas as a
means of exchanging ideas and knowledge. They also seek out opportuni-
ties to link with cities that are similar to themselves (e.g., other coastal
cities) so that they can share insights and compare experiences. Finally,
cities find that they can generate greater commitment by linking adapta-
tion to ongoing programs and by integrating climate considerations into
routine activities.
Carmin stated that, with regard to science, many cities are doing model
assessments with existing tools and data at a relatively low cost. Even a
little local knowledge is very useful. Some cities that rely on outside consul-
tants have been getting boilerplate reports that are insensitive to local con-
text. Assessments are regarded as a critical step in the adaptation process.
However, they do not always set the priorities for action. In some instances,
they are used to legitimate action that city leaders already want to take and
to demonstrate to constituents that this action is appropriate.
Public participation is not always well integrated. In the cities studied,
nongovernmental organizations are not initiating these processes, and few
are involved. Although a participatory process is seen as important, it is
secondary to city engagement. However, some cities are testing such ap-
proaches as community-based adaptation and are drawing lessons on how
to engage residents more broadly from these initiatives.
Carmin then discussed the disconnect between the five items of conven-
tional wisdom listed above and the lessons from practical experience (see
Table 7-1). (1) On the need for perfect and comprehensive science, Carmin
found that cities need baseline data and want downscaled projections but
often are able to work with what they have. (2) On the need for external
incentives, she is finding that leading cities are taking action endogenously.
(3) She is finding that although there is a need for additional capacity to
initiate and sustain adaptation efforts, especially a need for funding for
large infrastructure projects, cities also tend to be very resourceful. (4)
Although public participation is important, there may be multiple ways to
think about and develop it. (5) The assumption that the wisdom lies in the
North is incorrect. Leaders in cities in the global South seek out relevant
OCR for page 98
FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
TABLE 7-1 Conventional Wisdom Versus Practical Experience with
Climate Adaptation Among Cities in the Global South
Conventional Wisdom Practical Experience
Science needs to be right Leading cities initiate action
and assessments comprehensive. with baseline data and continue to review
and expand local projections.
Cities will not take action Leading cities are internally driven
without external incentives. and find ways to link adaptation to
ongoing goals and activities.
Initiating and sustaining adaptation Cities need additional support,
requires additional capacity. but also are resourceful.
Public participation is essential. Participation is important, but seen as an
element to be sequenced.
Wisdom lies in the North. Leaders seek out and adopt relevant
ideas, but also innovate and generate
knowledge.
SOURCE: JoAnn Carmin. Used with permission.
ideas from the North, but they also are developing knowledge and being
innovative.
Carmin’s research findings have several implications for U.S. policy: (1)
Cities want downscaled modeling and it would be helpful if they have these
tools, but they can still proceed without it. (2) Money is being marshaled to
do climate risk assessments, but dialogue is needed on what to include in
them, and they need to be focused on information critical to decision mak-
ing. (3) There is a need to emphasize links of adaptation to existing goals
and priorities, such as sustainability and development. (4) It is important
to ensure access to relevant information. There is also a need to promote
measures that extend local capacity, such as university-municipal partner-
ships. (5) Public participation should not be promoted simply for its own
sake but should emphasize critical points of engagement. Policy should be
open to alternative approaches to public participation. (6) Cities are sites
of initiation and of implementation and must be engaged in the early stages
of planning processes. (7) Cities also are sites of innovation in adaptation.
There is a need to foster multidirectional exchanges between the North
and the South.
In the discussion, Stewart Cohen reported on the Columbia Basin
Trust, a model from British Columbia that works to enable small towns to
OCR for page 99
PLACE-BASED ADAPTATION CASES
put climate change adaptation into their community plans. A competition
offers funds for doing this, for example, by paying for planners to enable
local governments to include adaptation in community plans and experts to
organize in-service training for local government officials. In this model, sci-
entists enable the local governments to act for themselves. Even these small
towns can initiate action if there is a champion at a higher organizational
level who can bring funds to the process. The trust spends about $30,000
per year per community.
Richard Andrews was interested to hear about the main barriers to ini-
tiation in the leading cities compared with other cities. Carmin said that she
cannot find a city that is doing nothing. She added that the level of buy-in
matters. If there is a powerful mayor who steps in, progress is faster than
if the initiative comes from city departments. She noted that old battle lines
can also be barriers to action: urban planning is often an outlier agency,
and competition among groups can also hinder initiatives.
Neil Adger asked whether the city planners involved in adaptation are
also involved in issues of reducing emissions and changing urban form.
Carmin replied that urban planning has little influence in many of these
cities. Having broad-brush city plans and strategies is a barrier to real
progress because such plans are not actionable and give a false sense of
accomplishment. She noted that, in most cities, mitigation and adaptation
are understood as two separate things. For example, in Quito, Ecuador,
mitigation is related to air quality and policy about pollution, which is an
entirely separate issue from flood management and other adaptation issues.
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects are given priority in many
cities because they are funded.
Peter Banks asked whether population growth is a more pressing is-
sue than adaptation for the cities. Carmin responded that the issue is not
growth versus adaptation; rather, there is a need to think about adaptation
in planning for growth, especially with new development. She was not sure
whether climate science is able to deliver what cities want to know.
Hassan Virji commented on initiation in Asian cities. In Bangkok,
he said a local nongovernmental organization is leading the action and
thinking about the entire future of the city, in which climate change is one
of many stressors. In Shanghai, activity is more top-down, with strong
involvement of developers. In both cases, downscaled climate models are
irrelevant. Moreover, such models will not be available in the next 20 years.
In Hanoi, downscaled model results were used to get a large loan to pay
for barriers against flood surges. Still, more rain is expected, and the floods
from the rain will hit the poor.
Susanne Moser asked Michele Betsill whether what she had learned
about mitigation was different from what Carmin learned about adapta-
tion. Betsill said it seems that adaptation has been harder to initiate in the
OCR for page 100
100 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES
North than in the South, probably because of differences in vulnerability is-
sues. In the United States, she has not seen cities asking for climate models,
but rather for answers to questions about the economic and social effects
of policies.
Roberto Sanchez-Rodriguez pointed out that any new built environment
will operate under changed climatic and social conditions. He said that in
addition to climate science, social science is needed to improve planning,
especially in the South. Many cities have an infrastructure for planning, but
it needs a lot of assistance.
Christopher Farley commented that, in the North, leadership is needed
from both mayors and city managers. He observed that the cities that
get involved in adaptation already tend to have mitigation plans and see
adaptation as an important addition. They see the value of doing adapta-
tion and mitigation together when they are complementary (for example,
with water conservation). However, cities have different foci (e.g., water in
Phoenix, sea level in Miami). He concluded that it is not possible to offer
a blanket statement about whether mitigation and adaptation are treated
differently.
CLIMATE ADAPTATION: FROM STORIES
TO TOOLS . . . TO ACTION
Amy Luers
Google
Amy Luers reflected on some of the key workshop questions on the
basis of her own experience in California with a climate policy that has
an adaptation focus and on her work at Google on the role of informa-
tion and technology in the context of knowledge systems. She noted that
there is increasing discussion about adaptation among policy makers, but
very little among the general public. She provided some insight on public
communication in this area, using summaries of trends in google searches.
She reported that Google searches for climate + change + adaptation are
increasing in number and are more common than climate + risk, climate +
vulnerability, or climate + resilience. However, compared with searches for
“global warming,” the number is minuscule.
After California passed Assembly Bill 32, when the state put a miti-
gation plan in place, people started asking what they should do about
adaptation. She said that it is difficult to articulate the climate adaptation
challenge to nonscientists. The mitigation challenge is relatively easy to ex-
plain, as the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be explained with
such concepts as “stabilization wedges.” With adaptation, people want
to know what specific problem they need to solve, what the options are,
OCR for page 101
101
PLACE-BASED ADAPTATION CASES
and what is at stake so they can debate the options. The bigger challenge,
however, is to build the knowledge, institutions, and culture to support
adaptive management. The problem can be articulated in terms of informa-
tion scarcity: there are lots of information sources, but there is the need to
acquire information, disseminate it, and make it actionable. Luers said that
a more distributed and participatory approach is needed for climate change
science. Information and communication technologies (ICT) have created
the web structure, but it has not been exploited. There are many data por-
tals with Earth observations and social networks to enable social learning.
However, the most pressing constraints are not in data or technology, but
rather are institutional, cultural, and economic. The disaster community is
well ahead of the curve on how to organize ICT in an innovative way to
provide more rapid information for responses to disasters. One example is
of a community “crowd sourced” map that was created within a week after
the cyclone in Myanmar.
Luers raised the following key questions: Today in the information age,
how do people access and gain trust in climate information? Is there a role
for the web and wiki environments to connect with scientific assessments?
How can institutions be developed to support ICT on climate adaptation?
How can the pieces for an adaptive and responsive ICT system be put
into place in an unplanned world? Can adaptation systems follow such a
model?
In the discussion, Cohen commented that the disaster community uses
information technology to display observations, which can be confirmed.
By contrast, scenarios and futures cannot be confirmed in the same way,
even though they are easy to visualize and even though they really get
people’s attention in communities. They can visualize a house in a flood
plain, causing its value to decline, but the visuals are art, not science. Lu-
ers said that the field is already heading in the direction of increased use of
visualizations and the like, and the question is how to design these outputs.
The community has not gone far in figuring out how to use the available
tools. She said she has been advised both to make downscaled projections
available and not to do so. She noted that it is possible to block data rep-
resentation at really small scales to avoid misinterpretations.
Dietz asked if there is research on whether these tools are disseminating
better information, or just helping people confirm their preconceptions. He
also asked whether web-based tools allow data acquisition through surveys
and the like. Luers said that google.org has a program to look at the use
of cell phones, etc., and universities are studying the use of open-source
platforms. She agreed that there are many social science questions not be-
ing asked about how people use information tools and about the relative
strength of influence of information from different sources.
OCR for page 102
