While seasonal outlooks have been operational for many years, until recently the extended‐range timescale referred to as subseasonal‐to‐seasonal (S2S) has received little attention. S2S prediction fills the gap between short‐range weather prediction and long‐range seasonal outlooks. Decisions in a range of sectors are made in this extended‐range lead time; therefore, there is a strong demand for this new generation of forecasts. International efforts are under way to identify key sources of predictability, improve forecast skill and operationalize aspects of S2S forecasts; however, challenges remain in advancing this new frontier. If S2S predictions are to be used effectively, it is important that, along with science advances, an effort is made to develop, communicate and apply these forecasts appropriately. In this study, the emerging operational S2S forecasts are presented to the wider weather and climate applications community by undertaking the first comprehensive review of sectoral applications of S2S predictions, including public health, disaster preparedness, water management, energy and agriculture. The value of applications‐relevant S2S predictions is explored, and the opportunities and challenges facing their uptake are highlighted. It is shown how social sciences can be integrated with S2S development, from communication to decision‐making and valuation of forecasts, to enhance the benefits of ‘climate services’ approaches for extended‐range forecasting. While S2S forecasting is at a relatively early stage of development, it is concluded that it presents a significant new window of opportunity that can be explored for application‐ready capabilities that could allow many sectors the opportunity to systematically plan on a new time horizon.

No abstract

Climate change research is at an impasse. The transformation of economies and everyday practices is more urgent, and yet appears ever more daunting as attempts at behaviour change, regulations, and global agreements confront material and social-political infrastructures that support the status quo. Effective action requires new ways of conceptualizing society, climate and environment and yet current research struggles to break free of established categories. In response, this contribution revisits important insights from the social sciences and humanities on the co-production of political economies, cultures, societies and biophysical relations and shows the possibilities for ontological pluralism to open up for new imaginations. Its intention is to help generate a different framing of socionatural change that goes beyond the current science-policy-behavioural change pathway. It puts forward several moments of inadvertent concealment in contemporary debates that stem directly from the way issues are framed and imagined in contemporary discourses. By placing values, normative commitments, and experiential and plural ways of knowing from around the world at the centre of climate knowledge, we confront climate change with contested politics and the everyday foundations of action rather than just data.

How should we measure a household's resilience to climate extremes, climate change or other evolving threats? As resilience gathers momentum on the international stage, interest in this question continues to grow. So far, efforts to measure resilience have largely focused on the use of 'objective' frameworks and methods of indicator selection. These typically depend on a range of observable socio-economic variables, such as levels of income, the extent of a household's social capital or its access to social safety nets. Yet while objective methods have their uses, they suffer from well-documented weaknesses. This paper advocates for the use of an alternative but complementary method: the measurement of 'subjective' resilience at the household level. The concept of subjective resilience stems from the premise that people have an understanding of the factors that contribute to their ability to anticipate, buffer and adapt to disturbance and change. Subjective household resilience therefore relates to an individual's cognitive and affective self-evaluation of their household's capabilities and capacities in responding to risk. We discuss the advantages and limitations of measuring subjective household resilience and highlight its relationships with other concepts such as perceived adaptive capacity, subjective well-being and psychological resilience. We then put forward different options for the design and delivery of survey questions on subjective household resilience. While the approach we describe is focused at the household level, we show how it has the potential to be aggregated to inform sub-national or national resilience metrics and indicators. Lastly, we highlight how subjective methods of resilience assessment could be used to improve policy and decision-making. Above all, we argue that, alongside traditional objective measures and indicators, efforts to measure resilience should take into account subjective aspects of household resilience in order to ensure a more holistic understanding of resilience to climate extremes and disasters.

Robust resilience measurement can improve our understanding of how people and societies respond to climate risk. It also allows for the effectiveness of resiliencebuilding interventions to be tracked over time. To date, the majority of measurement tools use objective methods of evaluation. Broadly speaking, these relate to approaches that solicit little, if any, judgment on behalf of the subject in question. More recently, subjective methods of evaluation have been proposed. These take a contrasting epistemological view, relying on people's self-assessments of their own capacity to deal with climate risk. Subjective methods offer some promise in complementing objective methods, including: factoring in people's own knowledge of resilience and what contributes to it; more nuanced contextualization; and the potential to reduce survey length and fatigue. Yet, considerable confusion exists in understanding subjectivity and objectivity. Little is also known about the merits and limitations of different approaches to measurement. Here, I clarify the conceptual and practical relationships between objective and subjective forms of measuring resilience, aiming to provide practical guidance in distinguishing between them. In reviewing existing toolkits, I propose a subjectivity-objectivity continuum that groups measurement approaches according to two core tenets: (a) how resilience is defined and (b) how resilience is evaluated. I then use the continuum to explore the strengths and weaknesses of different types of toolkits, allowing comparison across each. I also emphasize that there is no one-size fits all approach to resilience measurement. As such, evaluators should carefully consider: their epistemology of resilience; core objectives for measurement; as well as resource and data constraints, before choosing which methods to adopt.