The Social Life of Climate Change Models

Hastrup, Kirsten; Skrydstrup, Martin

doi:10.4324/9780203093870

Cited by 58 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The three main themes highlight issues to do with a lack of trust in ecological computer models, modellers, and decision makers using models to justify decisions. Our findings align with and build on previous work as in [4,5,7]. Using ecological computer models to inform decisions can thus be perceived by decision makers as risky because of the perceived lack of transparency and, hence, the ability to scrutinize the decision rationale.…”

Section: Rp5supporting

confidence: 88%

“…Among other factors, reluctance to employ model outputs to guide environmental decision making may arise from poor understanding of modelling and a lack of trust towards ecological computer models and modellers [5][6][7]. Before acceptance of ecological computer models and their outputs, decision makers may expect modellers to provide convincing evidence that model results are reliable before accounting for them in the decision making process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On Decision Makers’ Perceptions of What an Ecological Computer Model is, What It Does, and Its Impact on Limiting Model Acceptance

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental decision makers are required to understand complex ecological processes and ecological computer models are designed to facilitate this understanding. A set of interviews reveals three main perceptions affecting senior environmental decision makers' trust in ecological computer models as decision facilitation tools: an ecological computer model is perceived as (i) a 'black box', (ii) processing poorly documented, sparse and out-of-date input data, and (iii) whose sensitivity to model parameters enables manipulation to produce desired outcomes justifying pre-conceived decisions. This leads to lack of trust towards both ecological computer models and model-users, including other scientists and decision makers. Model acceptance appears to depend on the amount, currency and geographical origin of input data. This is at odds with modellers' communication style, which typically places more emphasis on highlighting the ecological computer model's features and performance, rather than on describing the input data. Developing 'big data' capabilities could deliver the large, real-time, local data that may enhance acceptance. However, the size and complexity of 'big data' requires automated pre-processing, using modelling and algorithms that are even more inscrutable than current ecological computer models. Future trust in ecological computer models will likely depend on how this dilemma is resolved, which is likely to require improved communication between modellers and decision makers.

show abstract

Section: Rp5supporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Decision Makers’ Perceptions of What an Ecological Computer Model is, What It Does, and Its Impact on Limiting Model Acceptance

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather than feeling the paralysis of uncertainty, I assume that households’ present capacity to cope with and respond to drought will be indicative of their abilities to adapt to the greater frequency and severity of droughts expected in the future. Though farmers may change their responses to drought as the common experience of weather variability shifts to a sense of climate change and greater unpredictability (Hastrup 2009), the best current approach for understanding future adaptation and consequences is learning what farmers do to cope with drought in the present and how drought affects communities now. Thus my analysis centers on variation in farmers’ adaptive capacities , or their abilities to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from drought (Blaikie et al 1994; Kelly and Adger 2000; Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley 2003; Eakin 2005).…”

Section: Theory and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dimensions of vulnerability in this smallholder agriculture context are a co-constitution of the social and natural, including soil resilience; the rules, relationships, and institutions that govern water access; and human knowledge of natural and agricultural systems. Vulnerability is a product of complex interactions between society and ecosystems, and thus social vulnerability is treated as socio-ecological vulnerability in this paper (Freudenburg, Frickel, and Gramling 1995; Cutter et al 2003; Adger 2006; Adger et al 2009b; Hastrup 2009; Field et al 2014). The attention on inequality and social mediation of natural resources unavoidably favors social structure, but I also demonstrate the intimate connections between the biophysical world and the reproduction of inequality.…”

Section: Theory and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving the Conversation on Climate Change and Inequality to the Local

Teller¹

2016

Sociology of Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is expected to shift seasonality in Tanzania, while smallholder farmers’ livelihoods and the economy rely upon the success of rainfed agriculture. However, we should not a priori assume doomsday climate vulnerability scenarios of drought and devastation in the rural global South nor, on the other hand, that farmers will optimally employ local knowledge for effective adaptation. Drawing from qualitative fieldwork in two Tanzanian communities, I question these grand narratives of devastation and local adaptive capacity and introduce an approach that brings inequality to the center. Poorer nations are most vulnerable to climate change, but they are not homogenous and neither are the smallholder farmers living within them. I present evidence on the crucial context-specific dimensions of socio-ecological vulnerability for these smallholder farmers—1) water resources and access to them; 2) agricultural knowledge, including farmers’ own knowledge and their interactions with sources like government-run agricultural extension and NGOs; and 3) existing drought-coping strategies—and the heterogeneity among farmers across these dimensions. Ultimately, this case demonstrates how climate change can reproduce existing inequalities within nations by drawing upon how farmers currently respond to drought as evidence. I present the difficult and somewhat bleak contexts within which the farmers are coping, but also illustrate the agency that farmers exhibit in response to these conditions and the adaptive capacity they possess. Finally, I call for more sub-national research on climate and inequality by sociologists and draw connections among within-nation inequality, climate change, and agricultural development initiatives.

show abstract

“…The hunters seek to navigate in an uncertain terrain and need all their navigational skills to fi nd their way in a changing landscape (Hastrup 2013b ). They are very concerned about the future, and I share that concern, which for all of us is based on both experienced changes and scientifi c predictions.…”

Section: Climate Worlds: Sites For Theorising Climatementioning

confidence: 99%

Grounding Global Climate Change

Greschke¹,

Tischler²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Social Life of Climate Change Models

Cited by 58 publications

References 0 publications

On Decision Makers’ Perceptions of What an Ecological Computer Model is, What It Does, and Its Impact on Limiting Model Acceptance

On Decision Makers’ Perceptions of What an Ecological Computer Model is, What It Does, and Its Impact on Limiting Model Acceptance

Moving the Conversation on Climate Change and Inequality to the Local

Grounding Global Climate Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About