Technical Policy Briefing Notes - 9
Adaptation Turning Points
Discussion and Applicability
Policy Briefs
Adaptation Turning Points
Discussion and Applicability
This
section discusses how a focus on thresholds and turning points can meet
information needs for policy making. The traditional view within
science has often been that scientists should deliver their best
possible projections to the decision process as detached specialist
(c.f. Ravetz, 2006). This is reflected in the more typical process of
adaptation planning, which begins with the generation of climate
projections, then an analysis of their impacts and finally the design
and assessment of options to adapt to those impacts. Many researchers
consider this mode of science-policy interaction outdated. Recent
studies have suggested that the process should be inverted and start
from the adaptation problem in its decision context in order to satisfy
information needs of decision-makers in the face of
uncertainty (Cash et al., 2006; Kwadijk et al., 2010; Brown, 2011;
Reeder and Ranger, 2011; Hanger et al., 2013).
Tailoring scientific information to the problems to which it will be applied implies an exchange between information providers and users with the aim to support governance decisions. For information to be useful, it must have three broad characteristics (Cash et al., 2003): salience, credibility and legitimacy. Salience means that the information is context-specific and relevant for the decision at hand. It entails ensuring that information provided is needed by those taking actions on it, and in a form that is understandable and can be acted on a timely manner. Credibility means that users perceive the information to be accurate, dependable and of high quality, while legitimacy means that the producers of information are seen to be politically unbiased and that they keep the users‘ interests in mind. Decision support for sustainability under climate change has the further difficulty of communicating deep uncertainty (Hallegatte et al., 2012). This arises not only from uncertainty in scientific models or incomplete understanding of particular natural or societal processes, but also from the presence of multiple valid, and sometimes conflicting, ways of framing a problem.
The assessment of thresholds and adaptation turning points can produce information that is legitimate, salient and credible for decision-making. Salience is derived from focussing on actor concerns and in particular what actors define as unacceptable change. This allows actors to reframe and understand climate change in terms of pre-existing interests or policy competences (c.f. Termeer et al., 2011). Salience is also supported by the work on adaptation pathways, which shows that the information is actionable and appropriate (even) in the face of deep uncertainty. Legitimacy stems from the central position that the concerns and values of actors take in the assessment. In addition legitimacy results from facilitating the discourse around potential changes in objectives and responsibilities (c.f. Adger et al., 2013).
Adaptation governance has an important role to play in the definition and renegotiation of rules and policy objectives untenable under climate change. Credibility results from combining bottom-up elicited social-political preferences with top-down impact projections to assess when and how likely it is that unacceptable conditions occur. It is also aided by the intensified efforts of researchers and policy-makers to coproduce knowledge that includes values and criteria from both communities (c.f. Cash et al., 2006; Hanger et al., 2013). Making this link between actor values, policy objectives and projections of global change is one of the most challenging aspects of the assessment (c.f. Offermans et al., 2011) as multiple links often have to be considered and transient scenario runs at an appropriate scale are scarce. Thus there may be a trade-off between the complexity of the social-political concern (salience) and the accuracy and scientific rigor that can be achieved (credibility) as presently the impact of climate change on more complex social-ecological systems and policy objectives is poorly understood. Here the study of thresholds and adaptation turning points can help set the research agenda.
Climate change becomes particularly relevant to decision makers in the specific situation where climate change induces policy failure and alternative strategies have to be considered. We call this situation an ‘adaptation turning point’.
The assessment of adaptation turning points provides an important entry point for a dialogue between science and policy about why people care, how much stress a system can absorb before an unacceptable situation is reached, when this is likely to happen, and what can be done. After projecting an adaptation turning point, actors need to search for new options.
The identification of turning points helps in mapping practical adaptation pathways that pull together information on available options and path-dependencies. These encourage taking the necessary short-term actions to sustain the current system, whilst keeping options open for planning longer-term activities and more fundamental system change that may be required depending on how time unfolds.
It is the combination of scientific underpinning and practical application that makes an assessment of adaptation turning points and adaptation pathways attractive for furthering adaptation.
Tailoring scientific information to the problems to which it will be applied implies an exchange between information providers and users with the aim to support governance decisions. For information to be useful, it must have three broad characteristics (Cash et al., 2003): salience, credibility and legitimacy. Salience means that the information is context-specific and relevant for the decision at hand. It entails ensuring that information provided is needed by those taking actions on it, and in a form that is understandable and can be acted on a timely manner. Credibility means that users perceive the information to be accurate, dependable and of high quality, while legitimacy means that the producers of information are seen to be politically unbiased and that they keep the users‘ interests in mind. Decision support for sustainability under climate change has the further difficulty of communicating deep uncertainty (Hallegatte et al., 2012). This arises not only from uncertainty in scientific models or incomplete understanding of particular natural or societal processes, but also from the presence of multiple valid, and sometimes conflicting, ways of framing a problem.
The assessment of thresholds and adaptation turning points can produce information that is legitimate, salient and credible for decision-making. Salience is derived from focussing on actor concerns and in particular what actors define as unacceptable change. This allows actors to reframe and understand climate change in terms of pre-existing interests or policy competences (c.f. Termeer et al., 2011). Salience is also supported by the work on adaptation pathways, which shows that the information is actionable and appropriate (even) in the face of deep uncertainty. Legitimacy stems from the central position that the concerns and values of actors take in the assessment. In addition legitimacy results from facilitating the discourse around potential changes in objectives and responsibilities (c.f. Adger et al., 2013).
Adaptation governance has an important role to play in the definition and renegotiation of rules and policy objectives untenable under climate change. Credibility results from combining bottom-up elicited social-political preferences with top-down impact projections to assess when and how likely it is that unacceptable conditions occur. It is also aided by the intensified efforts of researchers and policy-makers to coproduce knowledge that includes values and criteria from both communities (c.f. Cash et al., 2006; Hanger et al., 2013). Making this link between actor values, policy objectives and projections of global change is one of the most challenging aspects of the assessment (c.f. Offermans et al., 2011) as multiple links often have to be considered and transient scenario runs at an appropriate scale are scarce. Thus there may be a trade-off between the complexity of the social-political concern (salience) and the accuracy and scientific rigor that can be achieved (credibility) as presently the impact of climate change on more complex social-ecological systems and policy objectives is poorly understood. Here the study of thresholds and adaptation turning points can help set the research agenda.
Conclusions
Climate change requires long-term planning in the face of uncertainty where conservation may no longer be the sustainable option. Thus, decision making has to shift its attention to adaptation and strengthening resilience in social-ecological systems.Climate change becomes particularly relevant to decision makers in the specific situation where climate change induces policy failure and alternative strategies have to be considered. We call this situation an ‘adaptation turning point’.
The assessment of adaptation turning points provides an important entry point for a dialogue between science and policy about why people care, how much stress a system can absorb before an unacceptable situation is reached, when this is likely to happen, and what can be done. After projecting an adaptation turning point, actors need to search for new options.
The identification of turning points helps in mapping practical adaptation pathways that pull together information on available options and path-dependencies. These encourage taking the necessary short-term actions to sustain the current system, whilst keeping options open for planning longer-term activities and more fundamental system change that may be required depending on how time unfolds.
It is the combination of scientific underpinning and practical application that makes an assessment of adaptation turning points and adaptation pathways attractive for furthering adaptation.
download this briefing note