Actionable climate knowledge: from analysis to synthesis

Abstract

The traditional reductionist approach to science has a tendency to create 'islands of knowledge in a sea of ignorance', with a much stronger focus on analysis of scientific inputs rather than synthesis of socially relevant outcomes. This might be the principal reason why intended end users of climate information generally fail to embrace what the climate science community has to offer. The translation of climate information into real-life action requires 3 essential components: salience (the perceived relevance of the information), credibility (the perceived technical quality of the information) and legitimacy (the perceived objectivity of the process by which the information is shared). We explore each of these components using 3 case studies focused on dryland cropping in Australia, India and Brazil. In regards to 'salience' we discuss the challenge for climate science to be 'policy-relevant', using Australian drought policy as an example. In a village in southern India 'credibility' was gained through engagement between scientists and risk managers with the aim of building social capital, achieved only at high cost to science institutions. Finally, in Brazil we found that 'legitimacy' is a fragile, yet renewable resource that needs to be part of the package for successful climate applications; legitimacy can be easily eroded but is difficult to recover. We conclude that climate risk management requires holistic solutions derived from cross-disciplinary and participatory, user-oriented research. Approaches that combine climate, agroecological and socioeconomic models provide the scientific capabilities for establishment of 'borderless' institutions without disciplinary constraints. Such institutions could provide the necessary support and flexibility to deliver the social benefits of climate science across diverse contexts. Our case studies show that this type of solution is already being applied, and suggest that the climate science community attempt to address existing institutional constraints, which still impede climate risk management.

Adapting agriculture to climate change

“…The consensus appears to be that products developed under such theoretical frameworks should be closely aligned to the needs of agricultural decision makers, and that different levels of engagement should be considered. Involving stakeholders from project inception is critical if adaptation research is to be reflected in changed decisions and altered strategies and actions (20). We suggest that a participatory approach that cycles systematically between the biophysical and the socioeconomic aspects [supporting information (SI) Fig.…”

“…Operationally, however, translating adaptation options into adaptation actions requires consideration of a more comprehensive risk management framework. This would allow exploration of quantified scenarios dealing with all of the key sources of risk, providing more effective decision making and learning for farmers, policymakers, and researchers: an increase in ''climate knowledge'' (20).…”

Barriers and enablers to the use of seasonal climate forecasts amongst organisations in Europe

“…Sarewitz and Pielke (2007) argue the need to reconcile the supply and demand of science by bringing together scientists and decision-makers to frame and develop scientific information that is useful and usable for decision-making (McNie 2007). From a knowledge systems perspective Cash et al (2003Cash et al ( , 2005 defend the need for producing salient, credible and legitimate scientific information in order to make it 'actionable climate knowledge' (Meinke et al 2006). Other contributions to this discussion include end-to-end systems (Agrawala et al 2001) and co-production of science and policy (Lemos and Morehouse 2005).…”

Bridging policy and science action boundaries: information influences on US congressional legislative key staff decision making in natural resources

“…If the information is deemed relevant and credible, but is not perceived as having been produced or used in a legitimate way, it has a low probability of being used (Cash et al 2002). This quality criterion is considered to be essential for information to transfer across science-policy boundaries and be used as ''actionable knowledge'' that influences policy decision making and action (Meinke et al 2006). …”

“…Many, if not most, of these studies were written by or for scientists and specialists and were aimed at improving the shape of research, packaging research results, and crafting more effective communication in order to achieve greater influence of science on policy-making. However, despite the growing body of analytic literature and improvements, the perception persists that science continues to have relatively little impact on policy, regardless of this new focus on receptivity (Meinke et al 2006;Bauler 2012;Lemos et al 2012).…”