* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Integrating climate science with regional planning and policy
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Integrating climate science with regional planning and policy: Insights on from user studies Andrea J. Ray, Ph.D NOAA Earth Systems Research Lab (ESRL) and the NOAA-Univ of Colorado Western Water Assessment The User and the GEOSS Architecture IV “Regional Decisions for Climate Change” 21 September 2007 Who am I? Andrea J. Ray, Ph.D.: “Physical Scientist,” NOAA Earth Systems Research Lab, Physical Sciences Division (formerly the Climate Diagnostics Center) •Environment and society interactions, policy sciences, social science methodologies • Uses of information in natural resource management, especially federal/state/regional govts (who has “agency”) • Reduce vulnerability and raise resilience to climate variations by better incorporating risk in planning at multiple time/space scales • Applications of monsoon research (North American Monsoon Experiment) Participant in the Western Water Assessment (WWA) and X-RISA projects to feedback user perspectives to Climate Services • Climate services needs of Front Range (CO) municipal water suppliers; reservoir managers (Gunnison and Colorado Rivers) and their stakeholders; infusion of climate in Gunnison NEPA/EIS planning process; drought mitigation • Edit the Intermountain West Climate Summary (raising climate literacy among water managers and policymakers) Overview • Users, who are they? who works with them? What do they think about? – Integrated Science and Assessments projects – Findings of these projects about studying and working with users – Mechanisms to elicit user needs • Differences in perspectives between scientists and “users” • A brief example, Colorado River management • Brainstorm -- uses of GEOSS, who, for what, how Who are the “Users”? • Municipal/residential and industrial water users and organizations • Agricultural water users and organizations • Government managers, regulators, policymakers, planners (local, state, federal) • Professional organizations & tnetworks of all of these • Scientists and engineers • Providers of products and services (govt, pvt, media) • NGOs (e.g., biodiversity interests) • Recreation interests, individual and companies • Boundary organizations, which work between scientists and users • where do these water managers talk to each other • Changing context of the management in the Intermountain West region • New and expanded uses of/demands for water: • Population boom in the Southwest • Several tribal water rights adjudicated • Endangered species protection and other environmental management • Central Arizona Project on line • California’s 4.4 MAF apportionment has been re-negotiated • USBR mission of multi-purpose management continues to expand • “Shortage sharing” agreement on the Colorado River being negotiated Impacts of long-term drought and climate change??? Who studies users? Integrated Science and Assessments Academic communities: natural hazards, climate and society interactions, climate impacts studies; often environmenatl geographers/anthropologists/political scientists Sensitivities and vulnerabilities to weather and climate, needs for information, information pathways, institutional issues, capacity issues NOAA RISA: Regional Integrated Science and Assessments NSF HERO: Human Environment Research Observatories Int’l Human Dimensions of Global Change Program New focus under CLIVAR Others, NSF-, NASA-, NOAA-funded, also foundations, esp. for climate change Ongoing efforts with existing user-partnerships Regional Integrated Science & Assessments (RISA) • Eight regional projects, US and border focus, earliest began ~1995; primarily empirical studies • Mechanisms to elicit and understand user needs – – – – Perception, cognitive, communications studies Integrate and synthesize needs across groups Determine what services should be: part of a dialogue about risks Take advantage of social science studies of cognition, adoption and diffusion of innovations, and methodologies – Focus on users’ problem orientations: drought, hydropower, multi-purpose reservoir management; long-term planning; annual planning • Decision studies of water management and agriculture – Characterize decisions and decisionmakers – Institutional/legal – Organizational/behavioral • Experiments in communicating with stakeholders and in creating and sustaining partnerships over time – Reservoir management, drought task forces, climate change and state water supply planning Some perspectives from user studies: Recognize and expand our perspectives as scientists on production of knowledge • Information as a commodity • Externally generated, research-based information [legitimacy] • Decisions based on efficiency, optimization • Methodologies for providing model output as the end product to operational management Pulwarty and Jacobs, 2005 • Information as a process of negotiation, i.e., what information is needed in a given context, i.e. drought, and for a given sector) • Information produced within management organizations or agencies or by accustomed source • Decisions based on acknowledgement of interdependence of organizations & missions • Dialogue about risks vs. constructing and delivering a risk message; climate- related decision support systems Perspectives from user studies: What do they want? Historical data & projections of these at a basin scale • Snowpack/SWE • Soil moisture • Streamflow current/forecasted • Timing of spring peak; “holes” in a river (low flows) • Reservoir levels • Ground water • Surface water supply index (SWSI) • Palmer Drought Index • Temperature • Evapotranspiration, evaporative losses • Demand metrics, water and hydropower • Outlooks of these, and how ppt and temp outlooks relate, e.g., ppt needed to raise levels to near-average or other thresholds Perspectives from user studies: Users needs Longer-range questions • Increasing requests for information on interannual and decadal time scales (5, 10, 15 years into the future) • Reservoir inflows over several years (at least 2) • Drought outlooks over the next decade • “Can we produce reliable baselines for planning to give the large amount of year to year and decade to decade variations?” •“Are the assumptions of planning borne out under projections of varying and changing climates?” • e.g. 1906 Rio Grande treaty definition of “extra-ordinary drought” invoked 14 times over the last 50 years •“Do present simulations of change adequately represent modes of variations (ENSO, NAO, PDO etc.) ?” Example of long term planning and climate: Drought impacts on Lake Powell • 2007 water year runoff into Lake Powell was 51%average • Demands on the river are increasing -- recall changing context in the West • Lake Powell elevation has dropped more quickly in the recent drought than in a study of a 35-yr period of low flows, the most severe period in the paleo record (Stockton and Jacoby,1976) • Risk of call on the river? Upper Basin States (CO, WY, UT, NM) may soon be required to cease water diversions that are junior to the 1922 Colorado Compact in order to meet obligations to downstream users What if climate change reduces flows on the River? • From Harding, 2006, www.hydrosphere.com Points of Vulnerability • Generally similar to those found in the 1995 SSD, but more sensitive because of increased consumptive uses • In order of water rights: Upper basin, UB rights junior to compact • Non-allocated uses, e.g. recreational and environmental are particularly sensitive, yet these have increased in economic importance • In the event of a shortage, vague and often contradictory laws and policy mandates • 2006-2007 policy landscape provides opportunities to incorporate climate information • USBR Long term planning, evolution of operating criteria However, in the event of a shortage, vague and often contradictory laws and policy mandates Non-allocated uses, e.g. recreational and environmental are particularly sensitive, yet these have increased in economic importance 2007 policy landscape provides opportunities to incorporate climate information: Ongoing implementation of endangered species recovery plans (MSCP, CRRIP) and Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program Shortage sharing agreement,” EIS and the Environmental Impact Statement for the Aspinall Unit on the Gunnison River Opportunities What’s needed for decision support • Beyond forecasts --> “Services” • Dialogue about climate-related risks with policy and planning for 20-50 year horizons – Not forecasting for these horizons, but long-lived policies likely to encounter multi-year droughts and impacts of observed trends • Synthesis of research into products & analysis that connect climate impacts to water management impacts: Temperature --> evaporation, rain/snow mix, urban demand, length of growing season Timing of spring runoff (Dettinger, Cayan) --> water rights, reservoir reliability Synchroneity (Hamlet, Jain) --> diversity of supply sources • Interest in these for the Shortage Sharing EIS for Lakes Powell and Mead Some conclusions from across user studies: needs for water-related decisionmaking • water managers are often sophisticated about technical information, but not climate experts -- Scientists need to collaborate in a common language • Variables and indices • flexible formats, areas, time scales • tools to relate observations, historical data, and forecasts to water managers perspectives, e.g. to their problems •Ways to look at information from multiple sources together • Ways to evaluate climate scenarios in their management scenarios • Tools for managers to talk to their stakeholders • Benchmarks beyond “idealized value” • Partnerships • Interactions maintained over time • Influence of scientists on the drought planning process and of water managers on science done • Innovation in both science and management from interaction • Fora for communication, learning, bringing perspectives together Differences in perspective: scientists, managers, GEOSS architects?? Factor Scientist’s perspective Water Manager’s Perspective Identifying a critical issue Based on a broad understanding of the nature of water management Based on experience of a particular system Time frame Variable Immediate (operations) Long-term (infrastructure) Spatial resolution Defined by data availability or funding Defined by institutional boundaries or authorities Goals Prediction Explanation Understanding of natural system Optimization of multiple conditions and minimization of risk Basis for Decisions Generalizing multiple facts and observations Use of scientific procedures and methods Availability of research funding Disciplinary perspective Tradition; Procedure Professional judgment; Training Economics; Politics Job risks Expectation Understanding Prediction Ongoing improvement (project is never actually complete) Statistical significance of results Innovations in methods/theory Accuracy of information Appropriate methodology Save money and time; Protect the public; Protect their jobs, agendas or institutions Product Characteristics Complex Scientifically defensible As simple as possible without losing accuracy Importance of context Frame Physical (atmospheric, hydrologic, etc.) conditions as drivers Dependent on scientific discipline Safety and well being Profit Consistency with institutional culture, policy, etc. Nature of Use Conceptual Applied Brainstorming -- uses of GEOSS, who, for what, how • Long range planning by agencies at multiple space and time scales – Federal: USBR (reservoir plans), USFS (forest management plans), Drought/NIDIS (mitigation planning) – State – Regional and local govts (e.g. Denver Water) • Support climate services providers’ dialogue with users about risks -> • Support water managers and planners’ dialogues with their own stakeholders • Example from the California Assessment Progect (RISA) • Participates in state meetings on water planning • Key information -- in user-relevant variables and in context of related water and other information -- galvanized interest from state legislature Brainstorming II-- uses of GEOSS, who, for what, how • Reducing vulnerability requires consideration of a range of climate scenarios in planning and policy development – multi-year droughts and the impacts increased temperatures – Support for 20-50 yr planning horizons • Capability to view and compare information from multiple sources – Need user-oriented metadata, descriptions – GIS widely used by resource agencies, state/local planners, but climate information has not generally provided by NOAA in these formats – Connect types of data and projections • Work with Integrated Assessment groups – connect with spefic user group, – elicit and understand detailed user needs and common needs – have long-term partnerships and experiment with communicating information and aboutrisk – Understand the pathways that are used for information Thank you Andrea J. Ray, Ph.D NOAA Earth Systems Research Lab [email protected]