Facilitating Climate Change Responses: A Report of Two Workshops on Insights from the Social and Behavioral Sciences

174 Pages·2010·5.26 MB·English

by  National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Environmental Change and Society, Panel on Addressing the Challenges of Climate Change Through the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Paul C. Stern, Roger E. Kasper

Facilitating climate
change Responses
A R e p o R t o f t w o w o R k s h o p s o n k n o w l e d g e
f R o m t h e s o c i A l A n d B e h A v i o R A l s c i e n c e s
Paul C. Stern and Roger E. Kasperson, Editors
Panel on Addressing the Challenges of Climate Change
Through the Behavioral and Social Sciences
Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern-
ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the
councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer-
ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for
the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri-
ate balance.
This project was supported by Grant No. 2008-2146. Support of the work of the
Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change is provided by the William
and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Any opinions, fndings, conclusions, or recommen-
dations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not neces-
sarily refect the views of the sponsor.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-16032-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-16032-4
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; [phone] or
[phone] (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet http://www.nap.
edu.
Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2010). Facilitating Climate Change
Responses: A Report of Two Workshops on Knowledge from the Social and Behav-
ioral Sciences. P.C. Stern and R.E. Kasperson, Eds. Panel on Addressing the Chal-
lenges of Climate Change Through the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Committee
on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonproft, self-perpetuating society
of distinguished scholars engaged in scientifc and engineering research, dedicated to
the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.
Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad-
emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientifc
and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy
of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding en-
gineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members,
sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer-
ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles. M. Vest is
president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in
the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti-
tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.
Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci-
ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the
Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy
of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the
government, the public, and the scientifc and engineering communities. The Coun-
cil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr.
Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of
the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
PANEL ON ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE
CHANGE THROUGH THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
ROGER E. KASPERSON (Chair), George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark
University
RICHARD N. ANDREWS, Department of Public Policy, University of
North Carolina
MICHELE M. BETSILL, Department of Political Science, Colorado State
University
STEWART J. COHEN, Adaptation and Impacts Research Section,
Environment Canada, and Department of Forest Resources
Management, University of British Columbia
THOMAS DIETZ, Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan
State University
ANDREW J. HOFFMAN, Ross School of Business, University of
Michigan
ANTHONY LEISEROWITZ, School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, Yale University
LOREN LUTZENHISER, Department of Urban Studies and Planning,
Portland State University
SUSANNE C. MOSER, Susanne Moser Research and Consulting, Santa
Cruz, California
GARY W. YOHE, Department of Economics, Wesleyan University
PAUL C. STERN, Study Director
LINDA DePUGH, Administrative Assistant
v
COMMITTEE ON THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF
GLOBAL CHANGE
2010
RICHARD H. MOSS (Chair, 2010-), Joint Global Change Research
Institute, University of Maryland
THOMAS J. WILBANKS (Chair, 2004-2010), Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
RICHARD N. ANDREWS, Department of Public Policy, University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill
ANTHONY BEBBINGTON, Graduate School of Geography, Clark
University
WILLIAM U. CHANDLER, Transition Energy, Annapolis, Maryland
ROBERT CORELL, Global Environmental and Technology Foundation,
Grasonville, Maryland
KRISTIE L. EBI, Technical Support Unit, Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Working Group II, Carnegie Institution for Science,
Stanford, California
ANN KINZIG, Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe
MARIA CARMEN LEMOS, School of Natural Resources and
Environment, University of Michigan
TIMOTHY McDANIELS, Eco-Risk Unit, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver
LINDA O. MEARNS, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, Colorado
EDWARD MILES, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington,
Seattle
DENNIS OJIMA, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State
University
ALEXANDER PFAFF, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University
EUGENE ROSA, Natural Resource and Environmental Policy,
Washington State University
GARY W. YOHE, Department of Economics, Wesleyan University
ORAN R. YOUNG (ex offcio), International Human Dimensions
Programme on Global Enironmental Change Scientifc Committee;
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University
of California, Santa Barbara
PAUL C. STERN, Study Director
LINDA DePUGH, Administrative Assistant
vi
Preface
A series of reports from the National Research Council (NRC), in-
cluding the recent reports in the “America’s Climate Choices” project,
has underscored what has long been known—that the U.S. government
continues to lack the basic social science capability to address many of the
nation’s serious environmental and health problems. It is increasingly clear
that the technological systems facing the United States—in such varied do-
mains as energy systems, chemicals in the environment, radioactive waste
disposal, nanotechnology, and health systems—are at root social-technical
systems whose prospects and problems need to be addressed with integrated
analysis of technology, people, ecology, and social institutions. Yet the
interactions of technology and environment with human systems remain a
neglected research area.
The recent NRC review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program,
Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate
Change, is one of a plethora of examples. The program across 13 federal
agencies lists social science issues as central to two to three of its major
goals. Yet the review found that although effective progress had been made
on the natural science issues, very little progress had been achieved on such
critical social and behavioral science issues as risk communication, poten-
tial impacts of climate change on human systems, and engaging stakehold-
ers. Ant it was apparent that social science issues commanded only a few
percent of the total budget for federal climate science budget. In another
case, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) re-
cently completed a review of its progress since a highly negative report in
vii
viii PREFACE
2004 on its social science capability detailed its inadequate expertise and
resources. The 2009 review, Integrating Social Science into NOAA Plan-
ning, Evaluation and Decision Making: A Review of Implementation to
Date and Recommendations for Improving Effectiveness, found that not
only had NOAA failed to make signifcant progress, it had actually lost
ground over the 5-year period.
To help show federal agencies the value of the social and behavioral
sciences, the Hewlett Foundation provided a modest grant to the NRC for
two workshops that would showcase how the behavioral and social sci-
ences could contribute useful knowledge to the nation’s effort to respond to
climate change. The frst workshop, in December 2009, was on mitigation
of climate change risks, and the second, in April 2010, was on adaptation
to climate change.
The terms “mitigation” and “adaptation” have particular uses in the
climate change science feld that are different from usage common in the
social sciences. In climate change science, mitigation usually refers to ac-
tivities that reduce the extent of climate change, and adaptation refers to
actions that reduce the damage resulting from whatever climate change
occurs. In hazard research in the social sciences, by contrast, mitigation
typically refers to the amelioration of consequences by whatever means.
Adaptation, in climate change science, usually refers to organized efforts
rather than what might be termed “autonomous adaptation” by individual
natural resource managers. Indeed, as several speakers at the adaptation
workshop made clear, adaptation is ongoing in all societies where change in
their social and natural environments are an inherent part of daily decision
making and economic behavior.
The term “social-technical” system seems particularly relevant here.
The workshops gave particular attention to the couplings or linkages that
shape the interactions among society, technology, and ecology. At the same
time, it is apparent that the understanding of the nature of this coupling,
and particularly its causal connections, is still highly rudimentary. Much
work is needed for a more robust understanding of how such coupling
comes into being and how it functions in different contexts.
Social science research on mitigation and that on adaptation are at
different stages of development. Work on mitigation includes several bod-
ies of knowledge that can offer useful practical insights now. For example,
research on household behavior revealed signifcant opportunities for green-
house gas reductions without major changes in values or lifestyles. For
adaptation, however, although much is known about specifc elements or
facets of the processes of adaptation, no general integrative theory or frame-
work now exists to guide a coherent research agenda or to suggest a set of
best practices. The workshops were a salutary experience for most of the
PREFACE ix
participating social and behavioral scientists, often because there was the
opportunity to dig deeply into issues with other accomplished researchers
working on global climate change. The workshops also benefted strongly
from the attendance, and commentary, of a number of agency representa-
tives, including those from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration; National Science Foundation; Offce of Science and Technology
Policy; U.S. Agency for International Development; U.S. Departments of
Agriculture, Education, Energy, Interior, and Transportation; U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency; U.S. Government Accountability Offce; and
U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I am very grateful to the staff of the Committee on the Human Dimen-
sions of Global Change: Paul Stern, director of the committee and of this
project, and Linda DePugh, who handles all the administrative arrange-
ments. In addition, the project also would like to thank NRC fellow Hadas
Kushnir who provided research support for the second workshop. For
background, the project commissioned a paper from Seth Tuler of the Social
and Environmental Research Institute, which overviewed a number of the
major studies conducted on the siting of controversial facilities. The paper,
“Factors Infuencing Public Support and Opposition to Renewable Energy
Facility Siting: A Review of the Literature,” will inform future efforts by the
Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change to develop new
projects that build on the results of these workshops.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro-
cedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose
of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that
will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible
and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments
and draft manuscript remain confdential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Arun
Agrawal, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of
Michigan; Kristie L. Ebi, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institu-
tion for Science, Stanford, CA; and Charles Wilson, Department of Geogra-
phy and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science,
University of London. Although the reviewers provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the report nor
did they see the fnal draft of the report before its release. The review of
this report was overseen by Susan Hanson, Department of Geography,
Clark University. Appointed by the NRC, she was responsible for making
certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in
x PREFACE
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments
were carefully considered. Responsibility for the fnal content of this report
rests entirely with the authoring panel and the institution.

Roger E. Kasperson, Chair
Panel on Addressing Change Through the
Behavioral Social Sciences