Editing IPCC:AR6/WGI/Chapter-10 (section)

=== 10.5.2 Framing Elements for Constructing User-Relevant Information ===

<div id="h2-24-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="10.5.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="consideration-of-different-contexts"></span>
==== 10.5.2.1 Consideration of Different Contexts ====

<div id="h3-47-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Without considering the specific context, the distillation of climate information relevant to users may poorly serve the goal of informing adaptation and policy ( [[#Cash--2003|Cash et al., 2003]] ; [[#Lemos--2012|Lemos et al., 2012]] ; [[#Baztan--2017|Baztan et al., 2017]] ). [[#10.1.4|Section 10.1.4]] identifies three implicit framing issues of constructing and delivering user-relevant climate information: practical issues arising from the climate information sources, issues with including the context in constructing the information, and difficulties presented by complex networks of practitioners. The social context strongly influences decisions about constructing information and requires a nuanced and holistic approach to recognize the complexity of a coupled social and physical system ( [[#Daron--2014|Daron et al., 2014]] ). For example, urban water managers must recognize the dependency of the city on different water resources and the interplay of both local and national government legislation that can involve a range of different constituencies and decision makers ( [[#Scott--2018|Scott et al., 2018]] ; [[#Savelli--2021|Savelli et al., 2021]] ).

Context plays a role in determining the risks that may affect human systems and ecosystems and consequently the climate information needs. The context may also limit access to such information. Hence, the context imposes inherent constraints on how climate information can be constructed and optimally aligned with its intended application. Although contexts are unlimited in variety, some key contextual elements include:

* Whether the problem formulation needs to be constructed through consultative activities that, for instance, help identify thresholds of vulnerability in complex urban or rural systems ( [[#Baztan--2017|Baztan et al., 2017]] ; [[#Willyard--2018|Willyard et al., 2018]] ) or is more a matter of addressing a generic vulnerability already identified, such as the frequency of flood events or recurrence intervals of multi-year droughts ( [[#Hallegatte--2013|Hallegatte et al., 2013]] ).
* Societal capacity, such as cultural or institutional flexibility and willingness to respond to different scientific information (e.g., [[#Hart--2012|Hart and Nisbet, 2012]] ; [[#Kahan--2012|Kahan, 2012]] , 2013).
* The technical capability and expertise of the different actors, including users, producers, and communicators (e.g., [[#Sarewitz--2004|Sarewitz, 2004]] ; [[#Gorddard--2016|Gorddard et al., 2016]] ).
* Potential contrasts in value systems such as the different views of the Global North compared to those of economies in transition or under development ( [[#Henrich--2010a|Henrich et al., 2010a]] , b; [[#Sapiains--2021|Sapiains et al., 2021]] ).
* The relative importance of climate change in relation to non-climate stressors on the temporal and spatial scales of interest to the user, which at times are not the ones initially assumed by the producers ( [[#Otto--2015|Otto et al., 2015]] ).
* Availability, timing and accessibility of the required climate information, including the availability of sources such as observations, model simulations, literature and experts of the relevant regional climate ( [[#Mulwa--2017|Mulwa et al., 2017]] ). In developing countries, the availability of all or some of these sources may be limited ( [[#Dinku--2014|Dinku et al., 2014]] ).

These and other contextual elements can frame subsequent decisions about the construction of regional climate information for applications. For example, an engineer typically seeks quantitative information, while the policy community may be more responsive to storylines and how information is positioned within a causal network describing regional climate risk ( [[IPCC:Wg1:Chapter:Chapter-1#1.4.4|Section 1.4.4]] and Box 10.2). Multiple contexts can coexist and potentially result in competing approaches (for example, when urban governance contends with regional water-resource management in the same area).

<div id="10.5.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="developing-climate-information-conditioned-by-values-of-different-actors-and-communities"></span>
==== 10.5.2.2 Developing Climate Information Conditioned by Values of Different Actors and Communities ====

<div id="h3-48-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Developing climate information relevant to user needs can be influenced by the explicit and implicit values of all parties: those constructing the information, those communicating the information, those receiving the information, and, critically, those who construct the problem statement being addressed. A discussion of how values in the scientific community shape climate research appears in [[IPCC:Wg1:Chapter:Chapter-1#1.2.3.2|Section 1.2.3.2]] . The influence of values need not be a source of bias or distortion; it is sometimes appropriate and beneficial: critical scrutiny from a diverse range of value-governing perspectives may uncover and challenge biases and omissions in the information that might otherwise go unrecognized ( [[#Longino--2004|Longino, 2004]] ). Dialogue among all parties in a culturally, socially, and economically heterogeneous society is therefore important for recognizing and reconciling value differences to best yield information that is salient, relevant and avoids ambiguity, most notably when informing the complexity of risks and resilience for human systems and ecosystems in developing nations (e.g., [[#Baztan--2017|Baztan et al., 2017]] ).

Thus, a challenge with constructing climate information for users, especially about impactful change, is that producing the information may need to involve people with a variety of backgrounds, who have different sets of experiences, capabilities, and values. The information thus would need to accommodate and be relevant to a range of different ways of viewing the problem ( [[#Sarewitz--2004|Sarewitz, 2004]] ; [[#Rosenzweig--2013|Rosenzweig and Neofotis, 2013]] ; [[#Gorddard--2016|Gorddard et al., 2016]] ). Failure to recognize the variety of people using the climate information can make it ineffective, even if the source data on which it is based is of the highest quality, and may create a danger of maladaptation.

A substantial body of evidence shows that the receptivity of individuals to climate information is strongly conditioned by motivated reasoning ( [[#Hart--2012|Hart and Nisbet, 2012]] ; [[#Kahan--2012|Kahan, 2012]] , 2013), wherein a person’s reception of climate information is influenced by the values of the community with which the person identifies. Adherence to a community’s values forms part of an individual’s social identity ( [[#Hart--2012|Hart and Nisbet, 2012]] ). Individuals thus frame their analysis and understanding of climate information in the context of cultural values espoused by their community ( [[#Hart--2012|Hart and Nisbet, 2012]] ; [[#Kahan--2012|Kahan, 2012]] , 2013; [[#Campbell--2014|Campbell and Kay, 2014]] ; [[#Bessette--2017|Bessette et al., 2017]] ; [[#Tschakert--2017|Tschakert et al., 2017]] ; [[#Vezér--2018|Vezér et al., 2018]] ). Successful framing of climate information products thus seeks to identify common ground with users, taking account of their values and interests.

Given the relevance of both context and values, the effectiveness of climate information can increase if developed in partnership with the target communities (Figure 10.17; [[#Tschakert--2016|Tschakert et al., 2016]] ). Such an approach can inspire trust among all parties and at the same time promote a co-production process ( [[#Cash--2003|Cash et al., 2003]] ). Recipients of information have the greatest trust when the communicator is perceived as understanding their context and sharing their values and identity ( [[#Corner--2014|Corner et al., 2014]] ). As a consequence, developing mental models informed by user values can help with understanding complex climate models and their outcomes ( [[#Bessette--2017|Bessette et al., 2017]] ).

<div id="_idContainer050" class="Basic-Text-Frame"></div>

[[File:7e2a8db5005a7b53ce95baff79bb7660 IPCC_AR6_WGI_Figure_10_17.png]]

'''Figure 1''' '''0.17 |''' '''Effective regional climate information requires shared development of actionable information that engages all parties involved and the values that guide their engagement.''' Participants in the development of climate information come from varying perspectives, based in part on their professions and communities. Each of the three broad categories shown in the Venn diagram (Users, Producers, Scientists) is not a homogenous group, and often has a diversity of perspectives, values and interests among its members. The subheadings in each category are illustrative and not all-inclusive. The arrows connecting those categories represent the distillation process of providing context and sharing climate relevant information. The arrows that point toward the centre represent the distillation of climate information that involves all three categories.

The importance of a co-production process does not preclude the climate-research community from taking steps to develop and convey relevant information on its own. Indeed, communicating expert consensus about contested scientific issues is beneficial ( [[#Goldberg--2019|Goldberg et al., 2019]] ). Climate services ( [[#10.5.4|Section 10.5.4]] ), in particular, can become an effective means for using sources from the climate community and crafting these to be consistent with the needs, interests and values of stakeholder communities. However, simply presenting more information without recognizing user values and the contextual elements listed in [[#10.5.2.1|Section 10.5.2.1]] may be ineffective ( [[#Kahan--2013|Kahan, 2013]] ). An aversion to climate information discordant with one’s pre-existing beliefs can actually become stronger for people who are more scientifically literate: they feel more confident sifting through all sources of information to find support for their positions ( [[#Kahan--2012|Kahan, 2012]] ). A challenge is that if climate information is not framed carefully, recognizing context and user values, it may make the sceptical person less receptive to further information about climate change ( [[#Corner--2012|Corner et al., 2012]] ; [[#Hart--2012|Hart and Nisbet, 2012]] ; [[#Shalev--2015|Shalev, 2015]] ). A further complication is that audiences may view climate change as a problem distant in time and space ( [[#Spence--2012|Spence et al., 2012]] ), too threatening to acknowledge ( [[#Brügger--2015|Brügger et al., 2015]] ; [[#McDonald--2015|McDonald et al., 2015]] ), or too economically challenging to accept ( [[#Bessette--2017|Bessette et al., 2017]] ). Identifying positive outcomes that align with user values, instead of adaptation and mitigation efforts, appears to promote the interest in and the success of climate information ( [[#Bain--2012|Bain et al., 2012]] ).

<div id="10.5.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="the-roles-of-spatial-and-temporal-resolution-in-relation-to-decision-scale"></span>
==== 10.5.2.3 The Roles of Spatial and Temporal Resolution in Relation to Decision Scale ====

<div id="h3-49-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Climate processes occur on a range of spatial and temporal scales, from global to local, from centuries and longer to days or less ( [[#10.1.2|Section 10.1.2]] and Figure 10.3). Similarly, decisions by stakeholders cover a range of spatial and temporal scales that can vary with the size of their region of interest and scope of activity. However, the link between decision scales and the spatial and temporal resolution of climate and related non-climatic, natural-system information is not straightforward, and failure to recognize mismatches between the two can undermine the effectiveness and relevance of the information ( [[#Cumming--2006|Cumming et al., 2006]] ; [[#Sayles--2018|Sayles, 2018]] ).

Nevertheless, the scale of regional climate information does not have to be the same as the decision scale. Physical-climate storylines (Box 10.2) valid at large scales can be used to develop understanding that is relevant to local decisions. For example, global climate change affecting Antarctic ice-mass loss is relevant to formulating Dutch responses to sea level rise ( [[#Haasnoot--2020|Haasnoot et al., 2020]] ). On the other hand, extreme precipitation processes can occur on scales of tens of kilometres and smaller and thus require high resolution climate information when projecting future changes (e.g., [[#Xie--2015|Xie et al., 2015]] ). An important factor for developing effective climate information using the distillation process is aligning the vulnerabilities of the social and economic systems under consideration ranging from, for example, those important to a farmer to those important to a national agricultural ministry ( [[#Andreassen--2018|Andreassen et al., 2018]] ; [[#O’Higgins--2019|O’Higgins et al., 2019]] ). Thus, more sophisticated matching of spatial and temporal resolution of climate information with decision scales requires engagement across a hierarchy of governance structures at national, regional and local level (e.g., [[#Lagabrielle--2018|Lagabrielle et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="10.5.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="distillation-of-climate-information"></span>