CIRCE Stakeholder guidance document

advertisement
Stakeholder Guidance Note
CIRCE RL11: Integrating case studies
Maureen Agnew and Clare Goodess,
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK
Interactions between scientists and stakeholders should not be envisaged as a simple
linear process involving a mere unidirectional exchange of information. The activity is
much more complex, involving a two-way process shaped by a communication network
that exists at multiple levels and scales (Kasperson, 2005; Vogel et al., 2007). Successful
engagement is in part dependent on a spirit of cooperation, trust, and a convergence of
interests.
“Stakeholders are characterised as individuals or groups who have anything of value
(both monetary and non-monetary) that may be affected by climate change or by the
actions taken to manage anticipated climate risks. They might be policy-makers,
scientists, communities, and/or managers in the sectors and regions most at risk both
now and in the future” (Carter et al., 2007).
This guidance note discusses: 1. Stakeholder contribution; 2. Levels of stakeholder
involvement with particular reference to CIRCE and the integrating case studies; 3.
Available resources to enhance stakeholder involvement; 4. Stakeholder contribution to
CIRCE RL11 tasks / milestones; and 5. Bibliography for stakeholder dialogue with
particular reference to climate change research.
1. Stakeholder contribution
The principal contribution of stakeholders is in the form of individual and organisational
(private or public) knowledge and expertise. The success of stakeholder participation
exists not only in informing the most appropriate players but also in empowering them to
act on the additional information (Kasperson, 2006). Seven key areas of stakeholder
contribution have been recognised.
1.1. Decision making:
Close collaboration between researchers and stakeholders is generally necessary to
make the best use of information to manage uncertainty in decision making (Parry et
al., 2007). Vogel et al. (2007) present this as a cyclical and iterative process in which
scientists play a range of roles at different stages of the decision-making process
(Figure 1).
1.2. Risk assessment and management:
Stakeholder involvement is one component of the risk management framework
designed for climate-change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (CCIAV)
assessments (Carter et al., 2007; 2.2.6). The contribution of stakeholders is in
respect to the range of risks and their management. Understanding how a system or
community manages current climate risks facilitates the assessment of future climate
risks.
533568454
1
17/02/2016
1.3. Assessment of thresholds:
Thresholds, or limits of tolerable risk for climate impacts, can be derived with the aid
of stakeholders, and form part of the risk analysis (Kenny et al., 2000; Conde and
Lonsdale, 2005). The stakeholders then become responsible for managing
uncertainties connected to the critical threshold.
1.4. Establishing credibility:
The involvement of stakeholders in risk management helps to establish credibility or
legitimisation, stakeholder ‘ownership’ of the assessment process and results, builds
trust, and increases the probability of successful adaptation (Cash et al., 2003; Cash
et al., 2006; McKenzie Hedger et al., 2006; Kloprogge and van der Sluijs, 2006; Welp
et al., 2006; Carter et al., 2007).
1.5. Data and knowledge:
Stakeholder dialogues are important for gaining access to data, insight or knowledge
that would otherwise be difficult to obtain and might be left unknown (Welp et al.,
2006). This might include local (e.g., Finan and Nelson, 2008) or sector knowledge
of vulnerabilities or impacts to climate change. Through the provision of such
information, stakeholders can make an essential contribution to integrated
assessments of climate change (e.g., Lemos and Morehouse, 2005; Kloprogge and
van der Sluijs, 2006).
1.6. Adaptive process:
Clearly stakeholders have an important contribution in the process to reduce
vulnerability or increase adaptive capacity to climate change. Stakeholders input to
the process of adaptation may range from the use of indigenous knowledge (e.g.,
Goldtooth and Carino, 2006; Osman-Elasha et al., 2006; Goulden et al, 2008; Reinert
et al., 2008), to identification of current measures of adaptation, and an evaluation of
the viability of adaptive options (Thomalla et al., 2005; Conde and Lonsdale, 2005;
Conde et al., 2006). The attitudes and reactions stakeholders (Arnell and Charlton,
2008) and the cultures and values of communities (Reid and Huq, 2007; O’Brien,
2008; Coulthard, 2008) can act as socio-political barriers to adaptation. Structured
discussions are important to discuss adaptation options and their potential barriers
(Arnell and Charlton, 2008). The different experiences of stakeholders in adaptation
and mitigation (separately or conjointly) decision making can be compared to provide
further insight (Klein et al., 2007).
1.7. Recommendations:
Stakeholders may be central to the assessment of future needs for the formulation
and recommendation of policies and strategies for adaptation and mitigation
(Nadarajah and Rankin, 2005). Effective communication is the key to translating
information into policy or action (Vogel et al., 2007).
533568454
2
17/02/2016
Figure 1. Scientific input at various stages of the decision-making process and the nature
of science’s influence (Vogel et al., 2007)
CIRCE aims to capitalise on the real-life experience and expertise of local and regional
stakeholders for each of the integrating case studies. The EU project MICE (Hanson et
al., 2006) placed an emphasis on the contribution of stakeholders towards the end of the
project, RL11 places a high priority on stakeholder involvement at each stage of the
CIRCE project.
2. Levels of stakeholder involvement
There are a wide variety of approaches and levels at which stakeholder involvement may
take place, from the lowest level of passive engagement at which stakeholders solely
supply information, to the highest level at which stakeholders actively design and initiate
the process (Figure 2). At an intermediary level, stakeholders may be consulted or act as
equal partners in the research program. For example, the Living with Environmental
Change ten-year programme (LWEC) has been designed by the UK major funders of
environment-related research to build resilience, mitigate problems and adapt to future
change (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/lwec/). The programme has partners
within government departments, agencies, and the private sector. Within CIRCE, it is
likely that the level of involvement will vary from partner to partner, e.g., from a general
discussion of impacts and adaptation to climate change in the region, to direct
involvement in indicator selection, exchange of ideas, the provision of data, and testing
and evaluating measures of adaptation (such as using an adaptation toolkit).
533568454
3
17/02/2016
Figure 2. Ladder of stakeholder participation (based on Pretty et al., 1995; Conde and Lonsdale,
2005).
For RL11, it might be realistic to aim for the level of stakeholder participation. In the
CIRCE description of work for RL11, the contribution of stakeholders is given prominence.
RL11.”Provides a unique opportunity to identify and explore specific measures using both topdown (based on literature review and the modelling expertise of the academic research teams) and
bottom-up (based on the real-life experiences and expertise of regional stakeholders) approaches.
Strong stakeholder involvement from the early stages will allow identification of any adaptation and
mitigation measures already in place and construction of an ‘adaptation database’, together with
the non-climatic factors that may act as a constraint to, or facilitate, successful adaptation and
mitigation. Adaptation measures will encompass both planned adaptation to climate change
projections and responsive adaptation to experienced weather events. Where appropriate, regional
stakeholder involvement will be enhanced by holding workshops and producing focused material in
languages other than English” (CIRCE DOW, p88)
The definition of stakeholders provided by Carter et al. (2007) is very broad. It is
envisaged that the category of stakeholders participating and contributing to RL11 will be
much more focused and will be different to the much broader, strategic type of policy
makers involved in the Paris stakeholder workshop and proposed follow-up (18-19 Oct
2007; http://www.circeproject.eu/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=40&func=fileinfo&id=71 ). The
stakeholder pool is identified by the arena in which decisions related to climate change
are made. For RL11 this comprises local and regional decision and policy makers within
government departments, agencies, and public / private sector entities (Table 1). The
case-study briefing notes have each included a section outlining access to local/regional
stakeholders and providing a potential list for each region. These lists have been
catalogued into a RL11 stakeholder database (based on the format developed for the
CIRCE kick-off meeting, May 2007) and partners will add further details to this database
as the project evolves. Initiating contacts with relevant stakeholders and agreeing
participation within CIRCE represents a preliminary stage in the stakeholder participatory
process. At a higher level, there is a need to consider linkages of stakeholders,
communities and organisations at multiple levels and sectors (Moser, 2008 a, b).
533568454
4
17/02/2016
Table 1: Generic types of stakeholders relevant to RL11 Integrating case studies
CIRCE Casestudy category
Sector
Generic stakeholders
WP11.3 Urban
case studies
Urban planning
Health
Planners / developers / councils
Government department^ / hospital managers /
consultants
Managers / investors
Power corporations
Government department^
Government department^
Government department^ / agency
Government department^
Government department^ / agency
General public
Research councils / Academic institutions / private
consultants
Industry
Energy
Water
Environment
Tourism
Civil protection
Society
Research
WP11.4 Rural
case studies
Environment /
conservation
Agriculture
Forestry
Water
Energy
Health
Planning
Tourism
Economy
Insurance
Research
Society
WP11.5 Coastal
case studies
Fisheries
Environment
Rivers
Coasts / harbours
Waste
Agriculture
Planning and
development
Economy
Tourism
Research
Government department^ / agencies / International
governmental organisations (UNESCO) /
academic institutes
Farmer consortiums / farmer union / producers /
vintners / Government department^
Government department^ / agency / charitable
conservation organisations and societies
Government department^
Government department^
Government department^
Government department^
Government department^
Financial organisations / regional agencies
Company managers / insurance associations
Academic institutions
Rural communities
Fishermen / guilds / authorities / producer unions /
government department^
Government department^ / agency
Authorities / agencies
Authorities / agencies
Authorities / agencies
Farmers / academic institutions
Government department^ / planners / developers
Government department^
Government department^
Academic institutions
^ local / regional government departments were permissible.
533568454
5
17/02/2016
2.1 Areas of stakeholder involvement in RL11:
■
Assessment / sub-selection of indicators. The definitive list of environmental,
vulnerability and sustainability indicators appropriate for the Mediterranean will be
agreed in consultation with all CIRCE partners and with stakeholder involvement.
Draft lists of indicators (see the indicator criteria document, “Part I: Proposed
method for the selection of CIRCE indicators”) should be discussed with
stakeholders after the first iteration of consultation among CIRCE partners. It is
important that indicators are socially and scientifically relevant to the
Mediterranean. The criteria of direct relevance include:
▷
“Is the indicator relevant to policy makers and stakeholders?
▷
Does the indicator have resonance – is it accessible and readily understood
and interpreted by decision-makers and scientists?”
The insight and experience of local stakeholders may help determine the most
pertinent indicators in a ‘real world’ context. Following an agreement, the
constructed indicators, together with documentation and information for
stakeholders and the general public will be available from the CIRCE RL11 web
portal.
■
Discussion of adaptation and mitigation issues. This will involve recognising
sources of uncertainty in the decision-making process, identification of any
adaptation and mitigation measures already in place, construction of an
‘adaptation database’, and identification of barriers to, or facilitators of, successful
adaptation. Stakeholder involvement and the case-study work of RL11 ‘should
make a major contribution to building adaptive capacity in the case-study regions and other
parts of the Mediterranean, and hence facilitate delivering actual adaptation’ (DOW, and
see Adaptation Policy Framework, published by the UK Department for
Environment Food and Rural Affairs
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/adapt/policyframe.htm). Adaptive
capacity is developed through the reinforcement of networks, knowledge and
resources (Cohen, 1997; Cebon et al., 1999; Ivey et al., 2004).
■
Evaluating adaptation and mitigation options. ‘Another key aspect of WP11.2 is to
determine the way in which CIRCE partners will work with stakeholders to identify and
evaluate potential adaptation and mitigation measures (the focus of the stakeholder
workshops to be held during months 36-42). This will be done by collaborating with RL13
on the development, and, if possible, eventual testing in the workshops, of the open source
toolkit for the identification and evaluation of adaptation options’ (CIRCE DOW).
Stakeholders can evaluate adaptive measures through an iterative process by
which scientific information is integrated into the socio-economic, cultural and
political environment of the stakeholder (Asselt and Rotmans, 2002). Due to the
uncertainty of future climate and many other factors, decision makers should
systematically assess the performance of adaptation options over a broad range of
plausible futures to select the most robust strategy (Dessai et al., 2008). It is
anticipated that some of the stakeholder workshops will be able to evaluate the
utility of CIRCE tools such as weADAPT (http://www.weadapt.org/;
http://www.weadapt.org/docs/Climate_Change_Explorer_V1.pdf ) which will
provide the basis for the proposed RL13 toolkit and Antonella Battaglini’s (PIK)
bayesian tool for risk analysis.
In CIRCE, it is envisaged that stakeholder dialogue will be an ongoing component of the
research process, involving several cycles or phases. Initial cycles will aim to identify key
research issues in the case-study regions; these will progress to cycles involving the
533568454
6
17/02/2016
selection of key indicators, and consultation on impacts, adaptation and mitigation, and
policy recommendations.
It may be useful to consider the different tools and approaches to science-based
stakeholder dialogues. For example, Welp at al (2006) consider three theoretical
frameworks for staging stakeholder dialogue: Rational Actor Paradigm, Bayesian Learning
and Organisational Learning. The Rational Actor Paradigm conceptualises decisionmakers as having varying degrees of risk aversion. This may be a useful tool for guiding
climate change policy analysis when set within a social-rational framework (see Jaeger et
al., 1998). The Bayesian approach accepts uncertainty and assumes that events are
associated with a set of probabilities. It is useful for framing problems, improving
integrated assessments of climate impacts, and in the development of analytical tools
(e.g., Haas and Jaeger, 2005; CRANIUM project http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/projects/cranium/ ;
ACER project http://www.adaptation.nl/ ). Organisational learning (e.g., Senge, 1990; High
and Pelling, 2004; Shackley et al., 2005) recognizes the conditions for and process by
which a disparate group of scientists and stakeholders extend their knowledge base
through the dialogue arena and focuses on communication tools such as focus groups
and climate simulation games. This approach supports the notion of an intermediary that
acts as a mediator and ‘process facilitator.’
3. Available resources to enhance stakeholder involvement
Stakeholder involvement in CIRCE will be enhanced by establishing early contacts and
building on these relationships through ongoing mechanisms which involve the sharing of
information, and make use of the following resources:
■
The CIRCE brochure http://www.circeproject.eu/images/stories/circe_brochure.pdf,
and hardcopies.
■
■
The CIRCE website http://www.circeproject.eu
The case-study briefing notes. These can be translated into the language of the
case-study country if desired (note: there is no CIRCE funding for translation, so
this would be the responsibility of individual partners).
■
Indicator document (once it has been through the first iteration of review)
■
Framework / methodology document (once it has been through the first iteration of
review)
In addition, a bibliography of stakeholder involvement in research and in particular climate
change is included at the end of this document, and includes useful material.
There is no specific funding for stakeholder involvement until the round of workshops in
months 36-42. Therefore, having established initial contacts with stakeholders, partners
will have to rely on email and informal meetings to develop these relationships and share
information. The research team should aim to share good practice, tips on mechanisms
which work well, and a discussion session on stakeholder engagement will be included at
each RL11 meeting.
533568454
7
17/02/2016
4. Stakeholder contribution to CIRCE RL11 tasks/milestones
■
Selection of environmental vulnerability and sustainability indicators
■
Assessment of current risks / thresholds in CCIAV case study assessments
■
Participation in a round of workshops focusing on adaptation (one for each case
study towards the end of the project) – some of which will provide an opportunity to
test the open source adaptation tool kit (to be developed by RL13) and other
CIRCE tools
■
■
Identification and evaluation of potential adaptation and mitigation measures
Recommendations on adaptation and mitigation strategies
■
Data provision
■
Design / content of the web portal
4.1. CIRCE RL11 Milestones / tasks up to month 18 relevant to stakeholder engagement:
WP11.2 Common tools and central datasets (Goodess Clare, UEA, 01/04/2007 - 31/03/2011)
WP11.2(T12).M1 Agreement on a common set of environmental, sustainability and vulnerability
indicators appropriate for the Mediterranean (due: 31/03/2008)
WP11.3 Urban case studies (Giannakopoulos Christos, NOA, 01/04/2007 - 31/03/2011)
WP11.3(T12).M1 Establish formal links with stakeholders in the RL11 urban case-study areas
(due: 31/03/2008)
D11.3.2 Information sheets on the RL11 urban case studies (Giannakopoulos Christos, NOA, due:
30/09/2008)
WP11.4 Rural case studies (Bindi Marco, IBIMET-CNR, 01/04/2007 - 31/03/2011)
WP11.4(T12).M1 Establish formal links with stakeholders in the RL11 rural case-study areas (due:
31/03/2008)
D11.4.2 Information sheets on the RL11 rural case studies (Bindi Marco, IBIMET-CNR, due:
30/09/2008)
WP11.5 Coastal case studies (Sanchez-Arcilla Agustin, UPC, 01/04/2007 - 31/03/2011)
WP11.5(T12).M1 Establish formal links with stakeholders in the RL11 coastal case-study areas
(due: 31/03/2008)
D11.5.2 Information sheets on the RL11 coastal case studies (Sanchez-Arcilla Agustin, UPC, due:
30/09/2008)
WP11.6 Synthesis and wider implications of the case-study work (Goodess Clare, UEA,
01/03/2010 - 31/03/2011)
533568454
8
17/02/2016
4.2. RL11 Major milestones beyond month 18:
WP11.2
“- Construction of a common set of environmental, sustainability and vulnerability indicators
appropriate for the Mediterranean, for the present and scenario time periods (month 36)
- Final version of the case-study web portal - public (month 48)
- Finalisation and archiving of the case-study datasets - public unless subject to third party
restrictions (month 48)”
WP11.3; WP11.4; WP11.5
“- Briefing notes outlining the climate scenarios and projected impacts for the urban (rural,
coastal) case studies (month 36)
- Completion of the urban (rural, coastal) case-study workshops which will focus on the
identification of practical and specific adaptation and mitigation measures (month 42)
- Recommendations on adaptation and mitigation measures for the urban (rural, coastal) case
studies (month 48)”
WP11.6
“1. A case-study synthesis report aimed at stakeholders both internal and external to the CIRCE
community.
2. A journal paper suitable for peer-reviewed publication focusing on the methodologies used in
RL11, together with recommendations on how future integrated assessments could be
undertaken.”
Stakeholder Meetings / Workshops
A round of CIRCE RL11 stakeholder workshops is scheduled during the months 36-42.
There is funding for one workshop in each case-study region. It is envisaged that the
workshops will be participatory, and in some cases there will be an opportunity to evaluate
decision tools for adaptation to climate change.
Previous studies (e.g., Hanson et al., 2006) have found that successful interchange of
ideas and information can be achieved through a combination of pre-workshop
documentation, presentations (researchers and stakeholders); break-out groups for
discussing specific issues; and structured plenary sessions. For some studies, e.g., the
EU project MICE, some contacts were established just prior to the stakeholder workshops.
In the project CIRCE, relationships with stakeholders should have been in existence for a
couple of years – which should help to ensure active participation (Figure 2).
533568454
9
17/02/2016
5. Bibilography for stakeholder dialogue with particular reference to climate
research
Agrawala, S 2004. Adaptation, development assistance and planning: Challenges and
opportunities, IDS Bulletin-Institute of Development Studies, 35 (3): 50-+
Arnell N and Charlton M. 2008. Adapting to the effects of climate change on water supply
reliability. In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal
Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 21-28.
Bales, RC; Liverman, DM; Morehouse, BJ 2004. Integrated assessment as a step toward
reducing climate vulnerability in the Southwestern United States, Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, 85 (11): 1727-+ NOV
Bardsley, DK; Edwards-Jones, G 2007. Invasive species policy and climate change: social
perceptions of environmental change in the Mediterranean, Environmental
Science & Policy, 10 (3): 230-242
Barrett, JH; Haslam, RA; Lee, KG; et al. 2005. Assessing attitudes and beliefs using the
stage of change paradigm - case study of health and safety appraisal within a
manufacturing company, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35
(10): 871-887
Berkes, F; Berkes, MK; Fast, H 2007. Collaborative integrated management in Canada's
north: The role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based
monitoring, Coastal Management, 35 (1): 143-162.
Blenkinsop, S; Fowler, HJ 2007. Changes in European drought characteristics projected
by the PRUDENCE regional climate models, International Journal of
Climatology, 27 (12): 1595-1610
Boorman, DB 2003. Climate, Hydrochemistry and Economics of Surface-water Systems
(CHESS): adding a European dimension to the catchment modelling
experience developed under LOIS, Science of the Total Environment, 314:
411-437
Brenkert, AL; Malone, EL 2005. Modeling vulnerability and resilience to climate change: A
case study of India and Indian states, Climatic Change, 72 (1-2): 57-102 SEP
2005
Bulkeley, H; Mol, APJ 2003. Participation and environmental governance: Consensus,
ambivalence and debate, Environmental Values, 12 (2): 143-154
Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. O’Neill, M.D.A.
Rounsevell and M.B. Zurek, 2007: New Assessment Methods and the
Characterisation of Future Conditions. Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson,
Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 133-171.
Cash D et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 100(14): 8086-8091.
Cash D, Borck J, Patt AG. 2006. Countering the ‘loading dock’ approach to linking science
and decision making: a comparative analysis of ENSO forecasting systems.
Science, Technology, and Human Values 31: 465-494.
Cebon, P., U. Dahinden, H.C. Davies, D. Imboden and C.G. Jaeger, 1999: Views from the
Alps: Regional Perspectives on Climate Change. MIT Press, Boston,
Massachusetts, 536 pp.
533568454
10
17/02/2016
Cohen, S.J., 1997: Scientist-stakeholder collaboration in integrated assessment of climate
change: lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada. Environ. Model.
Assess., 2, 281-293.
Cohen, S; Neilsen, D; Smith, S; et al. 2006. Learning with local help: Expanding the
dialogue on climate change and water management in the Okanagan Region,
British Columbia, Canada, Climatic Change, 75 (3): 331-358.
Conde, C. and K. Lonsdale, 2005, Engaging stakeholders in the adaptation process.
Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change:Developing Strategies,
Policies and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and
S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 47-66.
Conde, C., R. Ferrer and S. Orozco, 2006, Climate change and climate variability impacts
on rainfed agricultural activities and possible adaptation measures: a Mexican
case study. Atmosfera, 19, 181-194.
Conde, C; Ferrer, F; Orozco, S 2006. Climate change and climate variability impacts on
rainfed agricultural activities and possible adaptation measures. A Mexican
case study, Atmosfera, 19 (3): 181-194.
Coulthard S. 2008. Should we hang up our nets? Adaptation and conflict within fisheries –
insights for living with climate change. In, Living with Climate Change: Are
there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February,
2008. pp 148-156.
Dabelko, G., 2005. Speaking their language: How to communicate better with
policymakers and opinion shapers—and why academics should bother in the
first place. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and
Economics 15 (4), 381–386.
Demeritt, D., Langdon, D., 2004. The UK Climate Change Programme and
communication with local authorities. Global Environmental Change 14, 325–
336.
Dempsey, R; Fisher, A 2005. Consortium for Atlantic Regional Assessment: Information
tools for community adaptation to changes in climate or land use, Risk
Analysis, 25 (6): 1495-1509
Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert R, Pielke R. 2008. Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation?
In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal
Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 49-57.
Downing, TE; Moss, S; Pahl-Wostl, C 2001. Understanding climate policy using
participatory agent-based social simulation, Lecture Notes In Artificial
Intelligence, 1979: 198-213
Ebi, KL; Kovats, RS; Menne, B 2006. An approach for assessing human health
vulnerability and public health interventions to adapt to climate change.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 114 (12): 1930-1934
Few, R; Brown, K; Tompkins, EL 2007 Public participation and climate change adaptation:
Avoiding the illusion of inclusion Climate Policy, 7 (1): 46-59
Few, R; Brown, K; Tompkins, EL 2007. Climate change and coastal management
decisions: Insights from Christchurch Bay, UK Coastal Management, 35 (2-3):
255-270.
Finan TJ and Nelson DR. 2008. Decentralised planning and adaptation to drought in rural
northeast Brazil: An application of GIS and participatory appraisal toward
transparent governance. In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to
adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp194204.
533568454
11
17/02/2016
Furstenau, C; Badeck, FW; Lasch, P; et al. 2007. Multiple-use forest management in
consideration of climate change and the interests of stakeholder groups
European Journal of Forest Research, 126 (2): 225-239.
Goldtooth T and Carino J. 2006. UN Division for Sustainable Development: Commission
on Sustainable Development: Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue Session,
Wednesday, May 3, 2006, Indigenous Peoples Caucus Statement on the
Thematic Issue of Climate Change and Atmospheric Pollutants,
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd14/statements/indigenous_multi_03may.
pdf
Goulden M, Naess LO, Vincent K, and Adger N. 2008. Local adaptations to climate
extremes in rural Africa: opportunities and barriers. In, Living with Climate
Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 78 February, 2008. pp 212-220.
Greening, LA; Bernow, S 2004. Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies:
use of multi-criteria decision-making, Energy Policy, 32 (6): 721-735
Gupta, J; van Asselt, H 2006. Helping operationalise Article 2: A transdisciplinary
methodological tool for evaluating when climate change is dangerous, Global
Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 16 (1): 83-94.
Haas, A. and Jaeger, C. 2005. Agents, Bayes, and Climatic Risks – a modular modelling
approach. Advances in Geosciences 4: 3–7.
Hanson, CE; Palutikof, JP; Dlugolecki A; Giannakopoulos C. 2006. Bridging the gap
between science and the stakeholder: the case of climate change research,
Climate Research 31: 121-133.
Hanson, CE; Palutikof, JP; Livermore, MTJ; et al. 2007. Modelling the impact of climate
extremes: an overview of the MICE project Climatic Change, 81: 163-177
Suppl. 1 MAY
Hedger, MM; Connell, R; Bramwell, P 2006. Bridging the gap: empowering decisionmaking for adaptation through the UK Climate Impacts Programme Climate
Policy, 6 (2): 201-215.
High, C. & Pelling, M. (2004). Understanding adaptive capacity to rapid climate change:
Drawing on theories of social and organisational learning. Rapid climate
change project working paper, No. 1, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Holman, IP; Rounsevell, MDA; Shackley, S; et al. 2005. A regional, multi-sectoral and
integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in
the UK, Climatic Change, 71 (1-2): 9-41
Iglesias, A; Garrote, L; Flores, F; et al. 2007. Challenges to manage the risk of water
scarcity and climate change in the Mediterranean Water Resources
Management, 21 (5): 775-788
Ivey, JL; Smithers, J; De Loe, RC; et al. 2004. Community capacity for adaptation to
climate-induced water shortages: Linking institutional complexity and local
actors, Environmental Management, 33 (1): 36-47
Jaeger CC, Renn O, Rose EA, Webler T (1998) Decision analysis and rational action. In:
Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, Vol 3, tools for
policy analysis. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, p 141–216
Karl, H.A., Susskind, L.E., Wallace, K.H., 2007. A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective
integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment 49, 20–
34.
533568454
12
17/02/2016
Kasperson, R.E., 2006: Rerouting the stakeholder express. Global Environ. Chang., 16,
320-322.
Kasperson, RE 2005. Bridging vulnerability science and practice. Paper present at the
Open Meetings of the International Human Dimensions Program, Bonn,
Germany, October 2005.
Kenny, G.J., Warrick, R.A., Campbell, B.D., Sims, G.C., Camilleri, M., Jamieson, P.D.,
Mitchell, N.D., McPherson, H.G. and Salinger, M.J. 2000. Investigating climate
change impacts and thresholds: an application of the CLIMPACTS integrated
assessment model for New Zealand agriculture, Climate Change, 46, 91–113.
Klein, R.J.T., S. Huq, F. Denton, T.E. Downing, R.G. Richels, J.B. Robinson, F.L. Toth,
2007: Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and
C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 745-777.
Kloprogge, P; Van Der Sluijs, JP 2006. The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge and
perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change, Climatic Change, 75
(3): 359-389
Kok, K; Patel, M; Rothman, DS; et al. 2006. Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective:
Part II. Participatory local scenario development, Futures, 38 (3): 285-311
Lagos, P 2007. Peru's approach to climate change in the Andean mountain region:
Achieving multidisciplinary regional cooperation for integrated assessment of
climate change, Mountain Research and Development, 27 (1): 28-31.
Ledoux, L; Cornell, S; O'Riordan, T; et al. 2005. Towards sustainable flood and coastal
management: identifying drivers of, and obstacles to, managed realignment,
Land Use Policy, 22 (2): 129-144
Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ. 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated
climate assessments. Global Environmental Change, 15: 57-68.
Lenzen, M 2006. Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments - Implications for
decision-making, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11 (3): 189199.
Letcher, RA; Jakeman, AJ; Croke, BFW 2004. Model development for integrated
assessment of water allocation options, Water Resources Research, 40 (5):
Art. No. W05502.
Marjolein, BAV; Rijkens-Klomp, N 2002. A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in
Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective, Global
Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 12 (3): 167-184
McKenzie Hedger M., Connell R. and Bramwell P. 2006. Bridging the gap: empowering
decision-making for adaptation through the UK Climate Impacts Programme.
Climate Policy 6(2): 201–215
McNie, L., Elizabeth, C., 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user
demands; an analysis of the problem and review of the literature.
Environmental Science and Policy 10, 17–38.
Metzger, MJ; Schroter, D 2006. Towards a spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability
assessment of environmental change in Europe, Regional Environmental
Change, 6 (4): 201-216
533568454
13
17/02/2016
Morgan, MG; Cantor, R; Clark, WC; et al. 2005. Learning from the US National
Assessment of Climate Change impacts, Environmental Science &
Technology, 39 (23): 9023-9032
Moser S. 2008a. Whether our levers are long enough and the fulcrum strong? Exploring
the soft underbelly of adaptation decisions and actions. In, Living with Climate
Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical Society, London 78 February, 2008. pp 176-193.
Moser SC. 2008b. A new charge: Engaging at the science-practice interface. IHDP
Update (Newsletter of the Int. Human Dimensions Programme on Global
Environmental Change). Under review.
Nadarajah, C. and J.D. Rankin, 2005: European spatial planning: adapting to climate
events. Weather, 60, 190-194.
O’Brien K. 2008. Climate change and changing values in Norway: Are their limits to
adaptation? In, Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation?
Royal Geographical Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 91-100.
Osman-Elasha, B. Goutbi N., Spanger-Siegfried E., Dougherty B., Hanafi A., Zakieldeen
S., Sanjak A., Atti H.A. and Elhassan H.M. 2006. Adaptation strategies to
increase human resilience against climate variability and change: Lessons from
the arid regions of Sudan. AIACC Working Paper No. 42, 41pp.
http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/working_papers.html (Accessed Dec
2007)
Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof and Co-authors 2007: Technical Summary.
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van
der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 23-78.
Parson, EA; Corell, RW; Barron, EJ; et al. 2003. Understanding climatic impacts,
vulnerabilities, and adaptation in the United States: Building a capacity for
assessment, Climatic Change, 57 (1-2): 9-42
Patt, A; Klein, RJT; de la Vega-Leinert, A 2005. Taking the uncertainty in climate-change
vulnerability assessment seriously, Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337 (4):
411-424
Pretty, J.N., I. Guijt, J. Thompson and I. Scoones, 1995: Participatory Learning and
Action: A Trainer’s Guide. IIED Training Materials Series No. 1. IIED, London,
268 pp.
Purkey, DR; Huber-Lee, A; Yates, DN; et al. 2007. Integrating a climate change
assessment tool into stakeholder-driven water management decision-making
processes in California Water Resources Management, 21 (1): 315-329
Reid H and Huq S. 2007. Community-based adaptation. A vital approach to the treat
climate changes poses to the poor, an IIED briefing. IIED, London.
Reinert ES, Aslaksen I, Eira IMG, Mathiesen S, Reinert H, Turi EI. Adaptating to climate
change in reindeer herding: The nation-state as problem and solution. In,
Living with Climate Change: Are there limits to adaptation? Royal Geographical
Society, London 7-8 February, 2008. pp 272-298.
Rikkonen, P 2005. Scenarios for future agriculture in Finland: a Delphi study among agrifood sector stakeholders, Agricultural and Food Science, 14 (3): 205-223
533568454
14
17/02/2016
Sauchyn, DJ; Joss, BN; Nyirfa, WN 2003. Sharing the geo-referenced results of climate
change impact research, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88 (1-3):
389-397
Scheraga, JD; Furlow, J 2001. From assessment to policy: Lessons learned from the US
National Assessment, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7 (5): 12271246.
Schneider, SH; Mastrandrea, MD 2005. Probabilistic assessment "dangerous" climate
change and emissions pathways, Proceedings of The National Academy of
Sciences of The United States of America, 102 (44): 15728-15735
Senge P., J. Laur, S. Schley, and B. Smith. 2006. Learning for Sustainability. The Society
for Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA:
Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation.
Doubleday, New York.
Shackley, S., Bray, D. and Bleda, M., 2005. Developing discourse coalitions to incorporate
stakeholder perceptions and responses within the Tyndall Integrated
Assessment, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 19
Shackley, S; Deanwood, R 2003. Constructing social futures for climate-change impacts
and response studies: building qualitative and quantitative scenarios with the
participation of stakeholders, Climate Research, 24 (1): 71-90
Stokes, KE; O'Neill, KP; Montgomery, WI; et al. 2006. The importance of stakeholder
engagement in invasive species management: A cross-jurisdictional
perspective in Ireland, Biodiversity and Conservation, 15 (8): 2829-2852
Sutherland, J; Gouldby, B 2003. Vulnerability of coastal defences to climate change,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water and Maritime
Engineering, 156 (2): 137-145
Thomalla, F., T. Cannon, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein and C. Schaerer, 2005:Mainstreaming
adaptation to climate change in coastal Bangladesh by building civil society
alliances. Proceedings of the Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference,
L.Wallendorf, L. Ewing, S. Rogers and C. Jones, Eds., Charleston, South
Carolina, 8-11May 2005,American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia,
668-684.
Tol, RSJ; Bohn, M; Downing, TE; et al. 2006. Adaptation to five metres of sea level rise,
Journal of Risk Research, 9 (5): 467-482
Valkering, P; Rotmans, J; Krywkow, J; et al. 2005. Simulating stakeholder support in a
policy process: An application to river management, Simulation-Transactions of
the Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 81 (10): 701-718
van Asselt, M.B.A. and J. Rotmans, 2002: Uncertainty in integrated assessment
modelling: from positivism to pluralism. Climatic Change, 54, 75-105.
van Asselt, M.B.A. and N. Rijkens-Klomp, 2002: A look in the mirror: reflection on
participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective.
Global Environ. Chang., 12, 167-184.
van de Kerkhof, M 2006. Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building
and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues, Policy Sciences, 39
(3): 279-299
van de Kerkhof, M; Wieczorek, A 2005. Learning and stakeholder participation in
transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72 (6): 733-747
533568454
15
17/02/2016
Vogel, C; Moser, SC; Kasperson, RE; et al. 2007 Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and
resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships Global
Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 17 (3-4): 349-364
Welp, M., Battaglini, A. & Jaeger, C. 2007. Social relevance of vulnerability assessments:
role of stakeholder dialogues in defining dangerous levels of climate. In:
Anthony Patt, Richard Klein, & Anne de la Vega-Leinert (Eds.) 2007.
Environmental Vulnerability Assessment for Policy and Decision-Making.
Earthscan (in prep).
Welp, M., Battaglini, A. and Jaeger, C.C. 2007. The Role of Stakeholder Dialogues in
Defining Dangerous Climate Change: The Beijng Excercise. In: Anthony Patt,
Dagmar Schröter, Anne de la Vega-Leindert & Richard Klein (Eds) 2007.
Environmental VulnerabilityAssessment for Policy and Decision-Making.
Earthscan (in preparation).
Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A, Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Fürstenau, C. 2006. Sciencebased stakeholder dialogues in climate change research. In: Stoll-Kleemann,
S. & Welp, M. (Eds.) 2006. Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources
management: Theory and practice. Springer, Berlin.
Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A., Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Jaeger, C. C. 2006. Sciencebased stakeholder dialogues: tools and theories. Global Environmental
Change 16 (2): 170-181.
Wilbanks, TJ 2005. Issues in developing a capacity for integrated analysis of mitigation
and adaptation, Environmental Science & Policy, 8 (6): 541-547 2005
Ziervogel, G; Downing, TE 2004. Stakeholder networks: Improving seasonal climate
forecasts, Climatic Change, 65 (1-2): 73-101
533568454
16
17/02/2016
Download