Frame-based guide to situated decision-making on climate change

Boer, J. de; Wardekker, Arjan; Sluijs, J.P. van der

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.03.003

Cited by 90 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Uncertainty can be perceived as a barrier to decision-making or used as a rationale to avoid decision-making, but in reality, it should not preclude action as uncertainties and unknowns are inevitable in any decision-making scenario. While computation strategies, using conventional decision-support tools such as multi-criteria analysis and cost-benefit analysis, would have to be based on an uncertain knowledge base, compromise, judgement or inspiration strategies could be more appropriate choices (de Boer et al, 2010) and may better reflect the important socio-political factors that shape the SIDS vulnerability. Within such strategies, robust decision-making could be applied to help decision makers understand the conditions under which a particular proposed policy would fail and ultimately identify policies that will endure under a range of scenarios (Lempert, 2013).…”

Section: Robust Decision-making Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate impact assessment and “islandness”

Foley

2017

IJCCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.*Related content and download information correct at time of download. in climate impact assessments, to explore potential climate futures. However, characteristics often associated with "islandness", such as smallness, land boundedness and isolation, may mean that climate impact assessment methods applied at broader scales cannot simply be downscaled to island settings. This paper aims to discuss information needs and the limitations of climate models and datasets in the context of small islands and explores how such challenges might be addressed.Design/methodology/approach -Reviewing existing literature, this paper explores challenges of islandness in top-down, model-led climate impact assessment and bottom-up, vulnerability-led approaches. It examines how alternative forms of knowledge production can play a role in validating models and in guiding adaptation actions at the local level and highlights decision-making techniques that can support adaptation even when data is uncertain.Findings -Small island topography is often too detailed for global or even regional climate models to resolve, but equally, local meteorological station data may be absent or uncertain, particularly in island peripheries. However, rather than viewing the issue as decision-making with big data at the regional/global scale versus with little or no data at the small island scale, a more productive discourse can emerge by conceptualising strategies of decision-making with unconventional types of data.Originality/value -This paper provides a critical overview and synthesis of issues relating to climate models, data sets and impact assessment methods as they pertain to islands, which can benefit decision makers and other end-users of climate data in island communities.

show abstract

Section: Robust Decision-making Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate impact assessment and “islandness”

Foley

2017

IJCCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kaplan (2008) states that one frame can prevail over another if actors can gain power by http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art51/ supporting the frame of more powerful actors. De Boer et al (2010) argue that actors with more power have more control over frames that are being used. Carragee and Roefs (2004) address that the role of power in framing is often neglected, whereas it is in fact a key issue.…”

Section: Actor Attributes Related To Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncovering the origin of ambiguity in nature-inclusive flood infrastructure projects

Hoek¹,

Brugnach²,

Mulder³

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. We aimed to uncover the origin of ambiguity in flood infrastructure projects using Building with Nature (BwN) design principles. BwN is a new approach in flood management that simultaneously integrates societal goals, such as flood safety and recreation development, with nature development goals by actively using natural dynamics and materials in the project's design. Because BwN projects affect multiple stakeholders and several societal functions, participatory project development is of key importance to successfully implement these projects. In such a multiactor decision-making process, a diversity of actors are involved, all of whom have their own view of the project based on their interests, values, beliefs, backgrounds, and past experiences. As a consequence, BwN projects are susceptible to being hampered by the presence of ambiguity, a kind of uncertainty that results from the simultaneous presence of multiple frames. For two BwN case study projects, we identified where the ambiguities potentially affecting project development resided, derived the different actor frames, and addressed the attributes underlying these frames. Our main finding was that ambiguity in BwN projects seems to originate from a contradiction between the beliefs held by different actors. Furthermore, our results suggest that in the current practice of BwN projects the scientific knowledge of experts is perceived as more legitimate than the local knowledge and experiences of lay actors, which implies that experts have a more powerful position in multiactor decision making. Thus, our research underlines the difficulty of bringing local knowledge and past experiences of lay actors into collective decision making.

show abstract

“…Perspectives structure human observations and help people to make sense of their environment. The perspectives we hold often function as filters for new information and knowledge we acquire, which has been recognized and studied extensively in studies of framing environmental (and other social) problems (Hoppe and Hisschemöller 2001;de Boer et al 2010;Taylor et al 1988;Hisschemöller 2005). Extreme weather events are by definition low probability but high impact weather events.…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptation to extreme weather: identifying different societal perspectives in the Netherlands

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intensity and occurrence of extreme weather events are expected to change with climate change. This change necessitates adaptive responses to extreme events, which need to take into account different societal perspectives, in order to be robust. In this paper, we explore the perspectives of different social actors in the Netherlands with respect to extreme weather events and ways to adapt to these events. The paper reports on a set of 41 interviews, using the repertory grid technique. The results were analyzed, to identify (a) the perspectives that stakeholders hold as most important for adaptation to extreme weather events; (b) the determinants of differences in perspectives. We find six different perspectives, all of which prioritize different adaptive actions. Producing robust adaptive responses which include different perspectives is therefore not a straightforward matter and is likely to result in win-lose situations. Further, differences in perspectives were not closely related to different sectors the interviewees belonged to. Thus, the traditional approach of involving different sectors to discuss and produce adaptation measures may be too limiting and needs to be supplemented to involving actors with different perspectives. The level of concern and level of information influenced the ways interviewees perceive adaptation priorities for extreme weather events. Participation in information events does not always result in perceived need to prepare for extreme events, something that adaptation communication needs to take into account.

show abstract

Frame-based guide to situated decision-making on climate change

Cited by 90 publications

References 53 publications

Climate impact assessment and “islandness”

Climate impact assessment and “islandness”

Uncovering the origin of ambiguity in nature-inclusive flood infrastructure projects

Adaptation to extreme weather: identifying different societal perspectives in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About